Utopia: Coming soon to earth!

[keithy_19]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5822265.ece

I don't like this.

[HBox]

The title of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

[MisterSmith]

The title of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

I agree. Very annoying.

[A.J.]

I was hoping this was going to be about Todd Rundgren.

[booster11373]

Yeah I hope a new "New Deal" doesn't happen considering how the first one failed so badly oh wait..........

[keithy_19]

Yeah I hope a new "New Deal" doesn't happen considering how the first one failed so badly oh wait..........

WW2 got us out of the depression.

[Drunky McBetidont]

WW2 got us out of the depression.

i bet you think reagan was a great president too, huh keithy?

[underdog]

WW2 got us out of the depression.

W got us into this depression.

[keithy_19]

i bet you think reagan was a great president too, huh keithy?

Reagan had his ups and downs.

[keithy_19]

W got us into this depression.

The fact that America was still using FDR's new deal approach didn't help. But Bush spent a disgusting amount of money. So he contributed to it. The wheels were in motion before he got to office, but fault still should be cast on him.

[scottinnj]

Keithy is more right then you think, although it wasn't just WWII that got us out of the depression. It was our ability to quickly move from a manufacturing system based on supplying our military back to an economy based on consumerism. While the New Deal provided jobs to build roads, dams and hydropowerplants, it was unable to provide the capital to start businesses that would exploit those infrastructure projects. However, the New Deal fortunately provided us with the ability to wage war on the manufacturing front. Just think of this...we would never have had the Manhattan Project without the Hoover Dam and other power grids being able to provide the immense electrical needs of Los Alamos.

[scottinnj]

Reagan had his ups and downs.

I'd say more ups then downs

[Death Metal Moe]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5822265.ece

I don't like this.

Yea, I hate a well spoken president who isn't afraid to be seen on camera and take questions. I hate a presiden who doesn't remind us everytime he speaks that Muslims hate our freedom. I hate a president who isn't willing to put one of his top guys in front of the UN and make him peddle a lie to allow him to start a war with a country that never attacked us. I hate a president who's willing to talk instead of putting up diplomatic walls. I hate a president that doesn't lay a sweeping label of "Axis of Evil" on countries then just act like they don't exist. I hate a president who created a positive feeling in our country.

Yea, this guy sucks.

[Death Metal Moe]

Keithy is more right then you think, although it wasn't just WWII that got us out of the depression. It was our ability to quickly move from a manufacturing system based on supplying our military back to an economy based on consumerism. While the New Deal provided jobs to build roads, dams and hydropowerplants, it was unable to provide the capital to start businesses that would exploit those infrastructure projects. However, the New Deal fortunately provided us with the ability to wage war on the manufacturing front. Just think of this...we would never have had the Manhattan Project without the Hoover Dam and other power grids being able to provide the immense electrical needs of Los Alamos.

So then you don't agree with Keithy because it wasn't World War II alone that got us out of the depression.

[HBox]

The fact that America was still using FDR's new deal approach didn't help. But Bush spent a disgusting amount of money. So he contributed to it. The wheels were in motion before he got to office, but fault still should be cast on him.

Wait, so FDR caused this depression? I am SO confused now.

[scottinnj]

So then you don't agree with Keithy because it wasn't World War II alone that got us out of the depression.

I agree more with the Keithy argument that WWII had more of an affect on lifting us from the Depression then the New Deal did.
But when it comes to the argument "New Deal vs. WWII" it is more then just "WWII got us out of the Depression" or "FDR got us out of the Depression with his New Deal"

WWII was the major factor in job creation here in America post-Depression. But it was all based on government contracts which were limited in their funding of purchases for the military. Post WWII economy broke free of depending on government contracts and shifted to banks lending money to individuals to buy homes, cars and major appliances & the such. It was then when we finally began to see the economic boom.

[furie]

WW2 got us out of the depression.

No it didn't.
It ended the unemployment problem by drafting all able bodied men, but being a conscript isn't really like being employed not does it contribute to the economy. Also, the US economy didn't start to turn around until the mid 1950's because of the massive deficit spending that went on during the 30's and 40's.

What got the US out of the great depression was that the world was buying american products because europe was in shambles, basically producing no manufactured goods, and deeper in debt than we were.

At most you can say WWII's side effects got us out of the depression, but not the war itself.

[ecobag2]

Keithy is more right then you think, although it wasn't just WWII that got us out of the depression. It was our ability to quickly move from a manufacturing system based on supplying our military back to an economy based on consumerism. While the New Deal provided jobs to build roads, dams and hydropowerplants, it was unable to provide the capital to start businesses that would exploit those infrastructure projects. However, the New Deal fortunately provided us with the ability to wage war on the manufacturing front. Just think of this...we would never have had the Manhattan Project without the Hoover Dam and other power grids being able to provide the immense electrical needs of Los Alamos.

check out the big brain on Brad.

[epo]

So the rundown goes:


World War II allowed us to cut the unemployment problem by deploying able-bodied men overseas.
The New Deal allowed us to update a subpar infrastructure which allowed industry to leverage in the marketplace.
The post World War II social programs and regulations allowed the workers of America to enjoy a good lifestyle.
Gordon Brown is calling for President Obama to join together to build a new "New Deal" sort of plan to rebuild the infrastructure which needs updating, a measure that the President has already moved on.

[Don Stugots]

Wait, so FDR caused this depression? I am SO confused now.

i get depressed riding on the highway named after him. wakka wakka.

[Kublakhan61]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5822265.ece

I don't like this.

Then you haven't read many books on the IMF and the world bank. Specifically, those by Joesph Stiglitz (former Senior Vice President of the World Bank) wherein we learn that the reason the "developing world" isn't developing is because the global powers need to maintain their banana republics and in doing so are basically enslaving developing nations by brokering awful deals for the desperate.
We're talking about neocolonialism, here. If Obama can do something to lift all nations up - more power to him.

Recommended Reading:

Globalization and Its Discontents - Joesph Stiglitz
A Small Place - Jamaica Kincaid

Recommended Viewing:

Life and Debt

[Bob Impact]

Then you haven't read many books on the IMF and the world bank. Specifically, those by Joesph Stiglitz (former Senior Vice President of the World Bank) wherein we learn that the reason the "developing world" isn't developing is because the global powers need to maintain their banana republics and in doing so are basically enslaving developing nations by brokering awful deals for the desperate.
We're talking about neocolonialism, here. If Obama can do something to lift all nations up - more power to him.

Recommended Reading:

Globalization and Its Discontents - Joesph Stiglitz
A Small Place - Jamaica Kincaid

Recommended Viewing:

Life and Debt

Recommended Reading: The World is Flat - Thomas Friedman

[booster11373]

Then you haven't read many books on the IMF and the world bank. Specifically, those by Joesph Stiglitz (former Senior Vice President of the World Bank) wherein we learn that the reason the "developing world" isn't developing is because the global powers need to maintain their banana republics and in doing so are basically enslaving developing nations by brokering awful deals for the desperate.
We're talking about neocolonialism, here. If Obama can do something to lift all nations up - more power to him.

Recommended Reading:

Globalization and Its Discontents - Joesph Stiglitz
A Small Place - Jamaica Kincaid

Recommended Viewing:

Life and Debt
You might also want to check out Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins

[booster11373]

WW2 got us out of the depression.

The real causes are not as simple as this fixed that but the legacy of the New Deal has a lot more good then bad

[Kublakhan61]

Recommended Reading: The World is Flat - Thomas Friedman

Friedman imply doesn't have his facts straight. I know you think that this intellectual pop culture referent will open my eyes to the error of my ways but - I read the book and thought it missed.
The global economy is not a level playing field for all. Perhaps it is for those who are up and coming now, but those who have been relegated to economic slavery since being 'liberated' by their prior colonizers do not have a chance.
Jamaica, for example, has been given just enough money, in the name of structural adjustments, to develop but not implement (that requires more money) significant and economically bountiful changes to their country and also to never see their way out of debt. How flat is the world when standing on the beaches of Jamaica?
Or, Antigua, who was sold cars and also sold unrefined oil to fill them up? Not very flat.

You might also want to check out Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins

Unfamiliar to me. I'll look for it.

[Bob Impact]

Friedman imply doesn't have his facts straight. I know you think that this intellectual pop culture referent will open my eyes to the error of my ways but - I read the book and thought it missed.
Please speak English the next time you try to insult me. But then again, I know nothing, not like I work with and manage people from these countries who are flourishing under their "captors."

[Kublakhan61]

Please speak English the next time you try to insult me. But then again, I know nothing, not like I work with and manage people from these countries who are flourishing under their "captors."

'Imply' was 'simply' minus the 's'.
No insult there - the pop culture bit (which I imagine alarmed you) was merely meant to denote the difference between scholarly texts and those generated for mass consumption.
I don't know what you do for a living - what countries do you work with that were once colonized nations and which are now flourishing without any help from their former captors, or countries exploiting them for cheap resources?

[Bob Impact]

'Imply' was 'simply' minus the 's'.
No insult there - the pop culture bit (which I imagine alarmed you) was merely meant to denote the difference between scholarly texts and those generated for mass consumption.
I don't know what you do for a living
To say Friedman is less scholarly because he appears in the New York Times is sadly descriptive of your obvious point of view, which seems to be an exceedingly negative one.

what countries do you work with that were once colonized nations and which are now flourishing without any help from their former captors, or countries exploiting them for cheap resources?

The majority of my people are from India and Mexico, although I work on a Global scale so it tends to be a bit easier to say what Countries I don't deal with. I just wonder if any of you jaded "scholars" have every actually asked any of these "oppressed" peoples whether their life is better now or before Globalization began. Would you rather be being "used" for your cheap labor rate and making a living and feeding your family or starving, as many more were before globalization came to be?

[Kublakhan61]

To say Friedman is less scholarly because he appears in the New York Times is sadly descriptive of your obvious point of view, which seems to be an exceedingly negative one.

He is less scholarly because he is a journalist, not an economist. That's all.

The majority of my people are from India and Mexico, although I work on a Global scale so it tends to be a bit easier to say what Countries I don't deal with. I just wonder if any of you jaded "scholars" have every actually asked any of these "oppressed" peoples whether their life is better now or before Globalization began. Would you rather be being "used" for your cheap labor rate and making a living and feeding for family or starving, as many more were before globalization came to be?


You're talking about something totally different than I am. You seem to hung up on a local level - mexicans and indians working in the US for less money then they are worth ... I know they're grateful for what they've got. I have spoken to them - it's part of being a jaded scholar and a researcher. It's sometimes referred to as research.
I'm talking about the global level - Look into the Ivory Coast's history. That would be my third example of what's gone wrong with globalization.

Anyway - I'm walking away form this. It's the politic section - I was hoping we could get a nice back and forth going but you read Friedman, a journalist with some opinions, and I read Stiglitz, a former World Bank VP who admits to sinking countries for the benefit of the US and Europe - and we both think we're right...

[Bob Impact]

He is less scholarly because he is a journalist, not an economist. That's all.

You're talking about something totally different than I am. You seem to hung up on a local level - mexicans and indians working in the US for less money then they are worth ... I know they're grateful for what they've got. I have spoken to them - it's part of being a jaded scholar and a researcher. It's sometimes referred to as research.
I'm talking about the global level - Look into the Ivory Coast's history. That would be my third example of what's gone wrong with globalization.

Anyway - I'm walking away form this. It's the politic section - I was hoping we could get a nice back and forth going but you read Friedman, a journalist with some opinions, and I read Stiglitz, a former World Bank VP who admits to sinking countries for the benefit of the US and Europe - and we both think we're right...

A) Not one, as in not a SINGLE ONE of my people from Mexico or India works in the US.
B) As far as Friedman goes, I brought his name up as a contrary opinion to your argument. Lord know I don't think the man is a god, in fact I disagree with a good portion of his arguments, probably more than I agree with.
C) I'll walk away too, you put up a great point, you've READ, I've LIVED, big difference. Your last sentence is very telling, you quote the experience of who you've read, I'm quoting my own experience. You're talking about a book, I'm talking about the actual lives of these supposedly oppressed people. I'll leave you with this, when the violence broke out in Mumbai over the Thanksgiving break not one of my people went into work that day, and they were all paid their regular wage, a convenience of working for a "big evil corporation" that their countrymen who worked for Indian firms did not get. Sure sounds to me like they're worse off for globalization. My point is it is very very easy to focus on the negative aspect of anything, it's also very telling of the "scholarly" type. Is globalization perfect? Hell no, not even close, but to lock out everything for the case of a few negative examples is shortsighted at best, and a disservice to those people you seem to care so much about.

[DonInNC]

Anyway - I'm walking away form this. ..

C) I'll walk away too.

That's too bad, I was enjoying the back and forth. It's interesting how the thread started with a protectionist tone and evolved into a debate about globalization's effect on third world countries.

On a slightly different note, expect more of this from the EU. "America First" or whatever the current buzzword is has them a bit nervous. I can't see a return to any kind of isolationism, though. Our economies are too interwoven.

[Bob Impact]

That's too bad, I was enjoying the back and forth. It's interesting how the thread started with a protectionist tone and evolved into a debate about globalization's effect on third world countries.

On a slightly different note, expect more of this from the EU. "America First" or whatever the current buzzword is has them a bit nervous. I can't see a return to any kind of isolationism, though. Our economies are too interwoven.

Any return to isolationism would be disastrous now, IMHO.