The people have spoken!

[shotgunslade]

Please note that Adam Smith referred to "enlightened self interest." This implies a recognition that the preservation of the playing field is necessary for the game to continue. Plain old self interest would allow a scorched earth winner take all game plan, which is what we now have to some extent. Unfortunately, such tactics are not sustainable, and we wind up with economic melt-down.

Our laws trying to regulate monpolies were the first recognition that people and corporations don't play fair. If unfettered, many people and corporations would exploit their economic advantage to destroy all of their competition. They then could be in a position to control pricing to their customers and the costs of their suppliers. Then the invisble hand is totally shackled,

Look at the adulteration of food in China with melamine to make it seem to have a greater protein content. Unfortunately, melamine is poison. The Chinese capitalists don't care, however, if their customers die; there are plenty more where those came from.

Perhaps the confusion is a strict definition of "honesty." Maybe players can lie a little bit without destroying the game, but they can't pursue absolute victory in the marketplace by any means necessary to the extent that the marketplace is destroyed.

Regulation by government seems to be the only effective mechanism for keeping the playing field viable. By the way, "seems to work quite well", I think, refers only to capitalism that is very much restrained by regulation. Otherwise, chaos. Granted that government employees have honesty problems of their own. Mostly those take the form of the players buying the referees to subvert the rules of the game. In other words, a major problem with government regulation is when the regulated buy the regulators to get around the regulations. Just further proof that unimpeachable regulation is the only guarantee of a free marketplace.

[LetItSnow]

Originally Posted by LarryIII

I prefer good Scotch to good beer. Different tastes make the world go round.

No questions there, but rest assured that I'll be drinking a Labatt's Blue tonight at the hockey game in my hometown, the snowiest noteworthy city in the United States.

DISCLAIMER: Read the final quote in this post first, people!!!

Originally Posted by poweredx2

I must say that I and many other people didn't vote for Obama because he was black

Taking things out of context can make for nasty results. Original quote:

Originally Posted by poweredx2

I must say that I and many other people didn't vote for Obama because he was black,but because after 43 others before him I feel he is best for the job at this day in time.

Be careful! GoogleBot results don't always print whole sentences!

[green_eyed_lady]

I have read this entire thread (among others on the same or similar topics) and have not yet had time to inject my 2 cents worth. I am now taking the time.

To Alan: Your analogy of the President to a grocery store manager/CEO is again comparing apples and oranges, as someone alluded to previously. The President, like the Queen, has limited power and relies on advisors who are much more knowledgeable to help them make decisions.

To Nate: The Housing Acts, just like the trade unions, were designed to help people who were getting screwed by "the man" or "the system". When I was younger and single, I still had to have a co-signer for a lease (not even a mortgage!) because the rent was more than 35% of my salary. My credit was excellent and the Property Management company had no reason to believe that I could not or would not pay my rent. I had NEVER been late on ANY payment in my life; however my credit history was short. The only criteria they had were the statistics that showed that 35% was all the average person could safely afford to pay for housing. The fact that those safeguards were disregarded and/or abandoned was the direct result of greed -- nobody did their homework because they (the mortgage brokers and the like) got paid whether the mortgage failed or not.

I have had my fill of "trickle down" economics; tax ALL income the same, including income not worked for (i.e. capital gains); eliminate deductions people receive just because they CHOOSE to own property or have children -- if they feel they can afford it/them, then THEY should pay for it/them, not me.

The problem with the political system (in my opinion), as people have heard me say before, is that in order to be elected to any kind of office, no matter how low, one has to garner favors which must be repaid at some point. By the time a politician works his/her way up to higher offices, they owe BIG TIME. The system is corrupt and the "players" are corrupted by it. It is one reason so many of us look toward the "newcomers", hoping they are less corrupt than the veterans of the game.

I'm sure there is much more to all of this than any of us know, but with our limited knowledge (and yes, I did SOME homework before I voted), we are all still free to form and voice our own opinions. THAT is what STILL makes this country great.

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by green_eyed_lady

To Alan: Your analogy of the President to a grocery store manager/CEO is again comparing apples and oranges, as someone alluded to previously. The President, like the Queen, has limited power and relies on advisors who are much more knowledgeable to help them make decisions.

doe he have enough wisdom and experience to choose the right advisors?

the grocery store CEO also has advisors, but i still don't think a two-year cashier should be running the whole show.

[Wikedjuggalo]

Originally Posted by green_eyed_lady

To Nate: The Housing Acts, just like the trade unions, were designed to help people who were getting screwed by "the man" or "the system".

I agree, the first round ones signed were! But the second time the new one came around it was about greed and it was banks pushing politicians to get it passed. What makes it worse is that there were attempts to regulate Fannie May and Freddie Mac but certain politicians shot it down real quick. Some foresaw the "housing market crash" but at the time counter measures stopped it.

Regardless I do feel we need change in our system but not the change he offers.

[svxistentialist]

Originally Posted by green_eyed_lady

I have read this entire thread (among others on the same or similar topics) and have not yet had time to inject my 2 cents worth. I am now taking the time.

To Alan: Your analogy of the President to a grocery store manager/CEO is again comparing apples and oranges, as someone alluded to previously. The President, like the Queen, has limited power and relies on advisors who are much more knowledgeable to help them make decisions.

To Nate: The Housing Acts, just like the trade unions, were designed to help people who were getting screwed by "the man" or "the system". When I was younger and single, I still had to have a co-signer for a lease (not even a mortgage!) because the rent was more than 35% of my salary. My credit was excellent and the Property Management company had no reason to believe that I could not or would not pay my rent. I had NEVER been late on ANY payment in my life; however my credit history was short. The only criteria they had were the statistics that showed that 35% was all the average person could safely afford to pay for housing. The fact that those safeguards were disregarded and/or abandoned was the direct result of greed -- nobody did their homework because they (the mortgage brokers and the like) got paid whether the mortgage failed or not.

I have had my fill of "trickle down" economics; tax ALL income the same, including income not worked for (i.e. capital gains); eliminate deductions people receive just because they CHOOSE to own property or have children -- if they feel they can afford it/them, then THEY should pay for it/them, not me.

The problem with the political system (in my opinion), as people have heard me say before, is that in order to be elected to any kind of office, no matter how low, one has to garner favors which must be repaid at some point. By the time a politician works his/her way up to higher offices, they owe BIG TIME. The system is corrupt and the "players" are corrupted by it. It is one reason so many of us look toward the "newcomers", hoping they are less corrupt than the veterans of the game.

I'm sure there is much more to all of this than any of us know, but with our limited knowledge (and yes, I did SOME homework before I voted), we are all still free to form and voice our own opinions. THAT is what STILL makes this country great.

That's a very considered evaluation Diana.

Obama's method of fundraising from the internet, getting large numbers of small donations, is both clever because it is new and also avoids some of the "pay-back" situation you mention.

I'm of the opinion that the non-discriminating voters who gave him a vote just because he is black will be balanced by the "conservative" shall I say element that would not vote for him because he is not white.

The swing voters moved his way because he is statesmanlike, a good orator and displays intelligence.

Looking in from the outside one facet of the victory that appeals to foreign countries is the fact that the majority of Americans voted for a coloured candidate. Whether or not you Americans feel this is historic, to the outside world it signals that middle America is putting aside its racist past. To the likes of African countries it must be like somebody just lit a bonfire on the moon.

The value of this goodwill should not be underestimated.

Alan and others are clearly worried the guy does not have experience enough to correct the economic problems. It's possible that he will be able to use the goodwill he has earned internationally to help make significant changes on the international financial playing field. As big as the US economy may be our current financial troubles are world wide. We need to look farther than the local economy for a fix.

Let's hope he is smart enough to pull a good team behind him to achieve this magic "change" we are promised. We sure as hell need a change, any time soon.

Joe

[JaySVX]

Sure, the rest of the world may think that America put aside it's racial past, but in reality, they didn't. It's still there, in sizable force, and that's going to take a bit more than this to get over. However, to vote him in because he's black, having the world look at us nicer, is a foolish way to select a leader.

And CEO to President is not apples to oranges. The CEO answers to his shareholders, his board members, his employee's, and his customers. He does a bad job, and people can easily switch to competition. Unfortuantly, with President, that's really not an option, at least not for most. Sure you could say "move to another country" but it's not realistic. Do people? Yes. Can everyone? No. Not even a small percent. So, your CEO you shop at his competition as a way of saying you don't like him. Your president? Options are limited, pretty much to don't vote for him next time. I don't like those options.

So now he's President Elect. I'm worried. I've considered moving, seriously, to canada or nothern europe, I have the education and the skills to most likely make it pretty well. However, I have kids, and seperating them from their mother, regardless of how she is, just isn't right. Well, I guess we'll see where we end up. I'll hang in there, with one foot in the door.

[svxistentialist]

Jay, you are either misunderstanding or misquoting what I said. Your phrase "the rest of the world may think that America has put aside it's racist past" implies that it is over, a done deal.

What I said was "to the outside world it signals that middle America is putting aside its racist past". "putting" implies work in progress, not an over and done with situation.

And the comparison with a big company or large corporation CEO may seem valid on the surface but is very disingenuous. Not in the USA or anywhere in the world is the Corporate environment subject to the checks and balances of a mature democracy. This is an apples and oranges comparison.

When you elect a president, you are electing a whole party and a complete government system. Not just one man. Black or white.

And I'm surprised at your comment about voting in a black to make the US look nicer to the world. Since when exactly did US citizens start to worry about how their elected representatives look to the outside world? A more insular and introspective electorate has yet to be invented.

Barak Obama is starting with the good will and trust of most of the nations of the world. Don't denigrate that, it's not because he has black skin. One or two of them have seen blacks before.

Row in and give the administration your support. Ignore Chicken Little.

Joe

[SuberNatural]

People talk of taxes and the economy and say we're doomed with Obama... And you woul have rather elected a man who couldn't remember how many homes he owned......

I could see everything being blamed on the clinton years execpt that i haven't seen one good thing come from these last 8 republican years.... Yet a lot of good things happened under clinton...

[Bobb]

Hi Joe, Thanks for the kind words. You are welcome over here any time. I was proud that rhe American people did the right thing and elected the best man for the job. He will have his work cut out for him. I hope the rest of the Democrats are up to the job. Also, don't be afraid of going with an Apple computer. I've had nothing but for more than a decade. If they can work for me they can work for anyone. Take care, BOBB

[LetItSnow]

Originally Posted by SuberNatural

...you woul have rather elected a man who couldn't remember how many homes he owned......

Is this really a valid argument when his opposing candidate couldn't remember how many states there are in our union?

I don't much want to participate heavily in this thread, but let's play fair.

[Royal Tiger]

The libs jumped all over the homes he owned question, when the WHOLE interview is replayed he explained he actually lives in 2, but has 7 as his wife is far more wealthy then he is and has ownership of the family estate. Doesn't make him look so "elitist" when the actual story is released in full. Obama claimed to have been to 57 of the 59 states, and Biden can't spell the word jobs, yet Quayle was a laughing stock for adding an e to potato. I don't think McCain was the best choice, but against Obama, he was.

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

Is this really a valid argument when his opposing candidate couldn't remember how many states there are in our union?

I don't much want to participate heavily in this thread, but let's play fair.

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

I don't think McCain was the best choice, but against Obama, he was.

agreed, +1