2016 Economic Crisis Thread - Duck and Cover?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2016 Economic Crisis Thread - Duck and Cover?

Will the global economy implode in 2016?
	We're hosed - I have stocked up on canned goods
	My private security guards will shoot the paupers
	We'll be good or at least coast along
	I have no earthly clue

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

View Results

Mozi: Apr 4, 2004; Forms change so fast
Time is moving past
Memory is smoke
Gonna get wider when I die; Nap Ghost

readingatwork posted:

Prove it.

Because for some reason he didn't respond, I think this is an illustrative graph: (http://voxeu.org/article/global-income-distribution-1988)

The great majority of the world's population sits on the left of the graph and has enjoyed historically unprecedented growth over the recorded period. The 1% on the very right have also done very well for themselves.

The 75-99% range, however, votes in America and Europe.

# ? Feb 4, 2017 14:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 8, 2024 11:43

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Right. Look at that chart and guess which 20 percent of the world population conveniently convinced themselves the sustem has failed and is actively trying to destroy it and screw everyone else (but mostly the poor of course).

# ? Feb 4, 2017 15:02

Mozi: Apr 4, 2004; Forms change so fast
Time is moving past
Memory is smoke
Gonna get wider when I die; Nap Ghost

It does make clear that (in my opinion) the fundamental problem is not free trade/globalization in and of itself, but the concentration of growth in the top 1% as a result of what more or less boils down to massive, often legalized, tax evasion.

# ? Feb 4, 2017 15:24

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Mozi posted:

It does make clear that (in my opinion) the fundamental problem is not free trade/globalization in and of itself, but the concentration of growth in the top 1% as a result of what more or less boils down to massive, often legalized, tax evasion.

Free movement of capital is part of globalization though, and it is pretty tough to liberalize trade without finance. If that growth from the 1%/corporations were more favorably spread to the 75-99% it might have stalled the direction the world was going but you were still going to have issues with a rust belt and significant portions of your population without a future.

Globalization was unavoidable in some capacity, but it certainly could have been done slower and with higher demands on the governments that were being traded to. In particular, there really was no reason to allow so much trade to flow to China itself with few demands, there is certainly other part of the developing world that manufacturing growth could have flowed to.

High tariff walls weren't a solution, but globalization could have been conducted far far better.

# ? Feb 4, 2017 16:08

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Mozi posted:

It does make clear that (in my opinion) the fundamental problem is not free trade/globalization in and of itself, but the concentration of growth in the top 1% as a result of what more or less boils down to massive, often legalized, tax evasion.

Agreed and that's what, for example, Thomass Picketty who studied global inequality extensively concluded. It's a policy that actually reacts to and addresses the problem.

Instead both sides of the political spectrum have contributed to a toxic cocktail of ideological propaganda that's fueling our current crop of nationalist populist movements.

# ? Feb 4, 2017 16:13

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Ardennes posted:

Free movement of capital is part of globalization though, and it is pretty tough to liberalize trade without finance. If that growth from the 1%/corporations were more favorably spread to the 75-99% it might have stalled the direction the world was going but you were still going to have issues with a rust belt and significant portions of your population without a future.

Globalization was unavoidable in some capacity, but it certainly could have been done slower and with higher demands on the governments that were being traded to. In particular, there really was no reason to allow so much trade to flow to China itself with few demands, there is certainly other part of the developing world that manufacturing growth could have flowed to.

High tariff walls weren't a solution, but globalization could have been conducted far far better.

Except we're not going to get better globalization. Killing the TPP for example means less globalization and worse globalization as more power shifts into the sphere of China who gives less of a poo poo about workers and rights than the U.S.

That's the perverseness of the "anti-system" propaganda. It's been incoherent and empty. As populists dismantle key aspects of the current system (as the left and right have told them to do) there isn't actually anything else there. Less US "imperialism" results in more imperialism. Less "exploitation" leads to more exploitation.

# ? Feb 4, 2017 16:26

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Think back to the 2012 NIE we are headed towards "stalled engines"

# ? Feb 4, 2017 16:58

Proud Christian Mom: Dec 20, 2006; READING COMPREHENSION IS HARD

The greatest trick globalists ever pulled was convincing people that robbing from the poor to give to the extremely poor was ok

# ? Feb 4, 2017 19:04

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

asdf32 posted:

Bold: Really? One word first: scale. The extent to which china opened itself to foreign investment and let its economic capacity be redirected towards foreign export is by foreign entities is 'liberalism' in that regard. It's historically notable in scale and sharply contrasts with how they (and much of the world) was previously operating (hence why the world 'liberal' exists to begin with, even though yes, words like trade and freedom have been around a while).

China has liberalized in every other respect to varying degrees too though at this stage, with its current GDP per capita its roughly where S Korea was under military dictatorship in the 80's. So its got a ways to go.

None-sense. The one-child policy is about as anti-liberal a policy as you could possibly have and it was implemented at the same time that China was opening itself up to greater foreign investment and trade. Again, you're just making bald assertions here and not supplementing them with any actual evidence.

Liberalism was supposed to be a package deal. If you can selectively pick and choose a few of its policies while ignoring others (like relaxing capital controls, democratizing politics, etc) to the extent that China does and then actually outcompete more liberal economies that hewed closely to the Washington consensus then the result cannot be cited as some great vindication of liberal policy.

quote:

The U.S. economically absolutely benefited in terms of GDP and purchasing power (there is no way we'd have the same access to all the consumer goods that are currently made in china) and the extent to which certain demographics were hurt by trade directly, versus automation or other trends is highly debatable.

No, it's not ambiguous whether the rustbelt was hit hard by the way globalization was implemented in the United States.

quote:

Contemptible would be the first world kicking out the ladder behind them with trade barriers in a self-defeating attempt to prevent wealth from leaving their borders with with support from certain wings of the left who selectively use examples of the developing world they don't give a poo poo about to make ideological points.

If globalization had been implemented in the way it was sold -- with wealth redistribution mitigating the painful economic restructuring triggered by changing trade patterns -- then this backlash wouldn't be threatening the world economy right now. Unfortunately these globalizing policies were intentionally implemented in such a way as to crush the labour movement and win domestic political battles, which triggered a massive expansion in corporate power and skyrocketing economic inequality. This pathetic attempt to retrospectively justify the breaking of the social compact between labour and capital by appealing to the welfare of Chinese workers is disingenuous and just emphasises how much liberalism failed in its own self-stated goals of improving everyone's living standards. If your ideology hadn't willing allowed itself to be conscripted into a domestic battle between labour and capital then it wouldn't have discredited itself in this way and it wouldn't have prompted such a vicious backlash. It's pathetic that you're now trying to redirect blame elsewhere.

# ? Feb 4, 2017 21:19

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Alternately it could be confronted and the irony dissolved. This is a way forward:

E. Warren posted:

I’m going to cut to the chase: We’re gathered today in Baltimore during a moment of crisis—for us as progressives, for us as Democrats, for us as Americans.

We’re in a moment of crisis, and I want to talk honestly about it.

Let’s start with a simple fact: Our moment of crisis didn’t begin with the election of Donald Trump.

We were already in crisis.

We were already in crisis because for years and years and years, Washington has worked just great for the rich and the powerful, but far too often, it hasn’t worked for anyone else.

We were already in a moment of crisis because for years and years and years, the economy has worked just great for those who have already made it, but far too often, it hasn’t worked for anyone else.

We were already in a moment of crisis because for years and years and years, we’ve been living in a nation where opportunity is quietly disappearing. A country that is giving fewer and fewer kids a real chance to succeed.

We all know that this country was never perfect. That systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, and bigotry meant opportunities weren’t spread equally. But over the past generation, we made a shift—a shift from a country bending in the right direction to one where the door to a better life—to a middle class life—has been getting further out of reach with every passing year.

For a long time, I have shouted from every rooftop I could find about how the middle class was on the ropes. How it was evaporating. How if we weren’t careful, it could be like the Arctic ice—melting every year, until it’s gone completely, never to return. And make no mistake, as the middle class melts, the opportunities for the poor shrink to the vanishing point.

People don’t just wake up one day and elect leaders like Donald Trump because hey, “everything is awesome, but what the hell, let’s roll the dice and make life interesting.”

No.

People don’t elect leaders who break all the rules—who violate all the norms—when things are going pretty well.

They don’t elect leaders who campaign for office by attacking communities of color, or religious groups, or immigrants, or women when things are just swell.

No.

Men like Donald Trump come to power when their countries are already in deep trouble. When the economies of their countries are deeply flawed. When people in those countries start to lose hope for a better future and start looking for someone to blame. And men like Donald Trump rise when those with money—and power—get a little worried about their own privileges and decide to help out one of their own who promises to look out for them.

In November, America elected Donald Trump.

Yes, the Russians helped.

Yes, the FBI director helped.

Yes, he lost the popular vote by three million.

But we cannot let ourselves off so easy. Not as progressives, not as Democrats. The excuses end now—right here in Baltimore. We hold ourselves accountable.

And we need to figure out what comes next.

There are some in the Democratic Party who urge caution. They say this is just a tactical problem. We need better data. We need better social media. We need better outreach. We need better talking points.

Better talking points? Are you kidding me? People are so desperate for economic change in this country that Donald Trump was just inaugurated as President, and people think we just have a messaging problem? What planet are they living on?

This is bigger than talking points and tactics, and yes, even than Twitter.

This country is in an economic crisis. For more than 30 years, working families, middle class families, poor families, students, seniors have been squeezed harder and harder, and now they are at the breaking point. Republican politicians have pushed one policy after another that has favored the rich and powerful over everyone else, and far too often, Democrats have gone right along. And no matter how extreme Republicans in Washington became, Democrats might grumble or whine, but when it came time for action, our party hesitated and pushed back only with great reluctance. Far too often, Democrats have been unwilling to get out there and fight.

That ends today. It’s time for Democrats to grow a backbone and to get out there and fight.

It’s up to us—the progressives. We need to make very clear that we, as progressives, as Democrats, as Americans, stand for a BOLD, progressive agenda. Stand for REAL solutions to this crisis. Stand for changes that will make a difference in the lives of millions of people. We need to make clear we will fight.

What do we fight for?

We fight for basic dignity and respect for every human being—everybody counts. All people are entitled to be treated with respect.

We fight for economic opportunity—not for those at the top, but for everyone. We believe that every one of our children deserves a fighting chance to build a real future.

We are not the minority party. We are the opposition party, and we need to talk about the key difference between us and them every day—and we need to say it in the plainest possible way:

Donald Trump has stirred ugly racism, sexism, and hatred in this country, and the Republican politicians smiled and climbed right into bed with him. That stink will be on them for decades to come. The national party that embraced bigotry. To every person in America, we need to say loud and clear: You don’t like how women are treated? Or Latinos? Or Muslims? Or African Americans? Always remember that the bigotry stirred up by Donald Trump is perfectly ok with the Republicans in Washington. They will confirm his Attorney General, they will look the other way on religious bans, they will shuffle their feet over a Supreme Court nominee who thinks employers should decide what kind of birth control women get. Republicans are afraid to stand up for what is right. Afraid to stand up for basic American values.

Well they can nurse their fear. We are not afraid. Democrats are the party of all the people—every single one. We believe everybody counts and everybody gets a chance. Nobody—nobody—gets cast aside. That’s the difference between Republicans and Democrats in Washington.

And one more: Donald Trump and the Republicans in Washington are on the side of the rich and powerful, and they are using every tool of government to help them get richer and more powerful. To every person in America, we need to say loud and clear: You think Wall Street has too much power in Washington? You think giant corporations call too many shots in government? You think billionaires get all the breaks while your family has to watch every nickel? Always remember: the Republicans are not on your side. They’re rushing to unleash the big banks. They’re rushing to gut the consumer agency that has forced banks to give $12B back to customers they cheated. They just pushed a backroom deal for giveaways to big oil companies and another for giveaways to investment advisers who cheat seniors. They’re ramming through a cabinet of ethically challenged billionaires with long histories of grinding working people into the dirt. And the corporate CEOs and the Wall Street bankers and the lobbyists are so happy they are doing little money dances in the halls of Congress.

The so-called “leaders” of the Republican Party can keep their rich friends.

That’s on them. But what’s on us? We need to be the party of hardworking people—every single one. We need to be the party of every family and every small businesses and every person who hasn’t made it yet. We need to be the party of every person who believes we should all get a chance to build something for ourselves and our families.

We need to say what we believe in, then we need to fight for those beliefs.
The world has changed a lot over the past few months, and let’s be honest—there’s no hotline number we can call to learn how best to deal with rising right-wing extremism in this country. Like a lot of you, I’m still finding my way, finding my footing, day by day, step by step. We make mistakes. But with each passing day, we learn.

The lesson of history is that when faced with a danger like Donald Trump, opposition needs to grow. Opposition needs to be focused. Opposition needs to be bold. Most of all, opposition needs to be willing to fight.

Things are moving fast, and time is running out—for us to grasp what has happened, and for us to make clear—in every way, from every mountaintop we can—that we will fight back.

# ? Feb 5, 2017 00:02

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

It drives me insane that she was not the 2016 candidate. She was absolutely the perfect person to run at that time.

# ? Feb 5, 2017 05:09

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

FlamingLiberal posted:

It drives me insane that she was not the 2016 candidate. She was absolutely the perfect person to run at that time.

She didn't want to run. She was my first choice too.

# ? Feb 5, 2017 05:44

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

FlamingLiberal posted:

It drives me insane that she was not the 2016 candidate. She was absolutely the perfect person to run at that time.

Shes my senator and I voted for her but she's not a presidential caliber candidate in my opinion.

# ? Feb 5, 2017 17:17

SHY NUDIST GRRL: Feb 15, 2011; Communism will help more white people than anyone else. Any equal measures unfairly provide less to minority populations just because there's less of them. Democracy is truly the tyranny of the mob.

Also she doesn't want it which is the only thing that matters.

# ? Feb 5, 2017 18:09

Paolomania: Apr 26, 2006

FlamingLiberal posted:

It drives me insane that she was not the 2016 candidate. She was absolutely the perfect person to run at that time.

Before the primaries MoveOn.org had done some questionnaires to find out who people liked and based on those results started the Run Warren Run campaign (which I supported). A little over a month after Hillary announced, the campaign was shut down, probably by Warren deferring to party wishes.

# ? Feb 5, 2017 19:02

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:

Also she doesn't want it which is the only thing that matters.

I am increasingly of the opinion that the only people who should be allowed to become POTUS are the people who want the job the least, so only the most direly important stuff gets done.

We're choking to death on presidents and Serious Candidates who are already writing their hagiography before their asses are warming the fuckin' chair to which they aspire.

# ? Feb 5, 2017 20:13

SHY NUDIST GRRL: Feb 15, 2011; Communism will help more white people than anyone else. Any equal measures unfairly provide less to minority populations just because there's less of them. Democracy is truly the tyranny of the mob.

Well yeah the only people who are going to go through the hoops are the worst type to have power
I think this cycle showed how useless it can be to be a big name in politics. All these rising stars and old pillars crashed an burned. Meanwhile no one knew who the hell Bernie was three years ago.

# ? Feb 5, 2017 20:25

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Willie Tomg posted:

I am increasingly of the opinion that the only people who should be allowed to become POTUS are the people who want the job the least, so only the most direly important stuff gets done.

That's generally true of leadership positions in general in the end. The people who most want positions of power and influence are generally those that are attracted to power for their own benefit. There are exceptions of course and some people do genuinely just want to make the world suck less but those most attracted to power are typically those that will abuse it. The non-ambitious that wouldn't abuse the power are the ones who aren't going to run for office in the first place.

# ? Feb 5, 2017 21:32

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Helsing posted:

If globalization had been implemented in the way it was sold -- with wealth redistribution mitigating the painful economic restructuring triggered by changing trade patterns -- then this backlash wouldn't be threatening the world economy right now. Unfortunately these globalizing policies were intentionally implemented in such a way as to crush the labour movement and win domestic political battles, which triggered a massive expansion in corporate power and skyrocketing economic inequality. This pathetic attempt to retrospectively justify the breaking of the social compact between labour and capital by appealing to the welfare of Chinese workers is disingenuous and just emphasises how much liberalism failed in its own self-stated goals of improving everyone's living standards. If your ideology hadn't willing allowed itself to be conscripted into a domestic battle between labour and capital then it wouldn't have discredited itself in this way and it wouldn't have prompted such a vicious backlash. It's pathetic that you're now trying to redirect blame elsewhere.

Let's say what we're all thinking. Which countries are invariably brought up as the ideals of progressive governance? Kingdoms, my friends, good and proper kingdoms. I'm not saying we didn't have a good run. In 1776, it probably even made a lot of sense. But today, it's time to call the Republican experiment quits, and once more embrace full monarchism. In fact, capitalism and communism are in fact both not-even-wrong ideologies that failed and died long ago, and we all live in their decaying ruins. Fascism doesn't need to be given the time of day, obviously. Hence, my friends, absent a method for reaching stable anarchist governance, that really only leaves one obtainable form of government, one shared by such glorious nations as Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Canada.

It's up to the modern pragmatic progressive to bend a knee and subject themselves to the authority of good and proper Crown rule once again. For King and Country, comrades. :feelsgood:

# ? Feb 6, 2017 12:59

SA_Avenger: Oct 22, 2012

Zodium posted:

Let's say what we're all thinking. Which countries are invariably brought up as the ideals of progressive governance? Kingdoms, my friends, good and proper kingdoms. I'm not saying we didn't have a good run. In 1776, it probably even made a lot of sense. But today, it's time to call the Republican experiment quits, and once more embrace full monarchism. In fact, capitalism and communism are in fact both not-even-wrong ideologies that failed and died long ago, and we all live in their decaying ruins. Fascism doesn't need to be given the time of day, obviously. Hence, my friends, absent a method for reaching stable anarchist governance, that really only leaves one obtainable form of government, one shared by such glorious nations as Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Canada.

It's up to the modern pragmatic progressive to bend a knee and subject themselves to the authority of good and proper Crown rule once again. For King and Country, comrades.

Can we have enlightened despotism instead?

# ? Feb 6, 2017 13:33

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

# ? Feb 6, 2017 13:44

Goa Tse-tung: Feb 11, 2008; ;3; Yams Fan

benevolent dictatorship?

# ? Feb 6, 2017 14:40

9-Volt Assault: Jan 27, 2007; Beter twee tetten in de hand dan tien op de vlucht.

asdf32 posted:

Right. Look at that chart and guess which 20 percent of the world population conveniently convinced themselves the sustem has failed and is actively trying to destroy it and screw everyone else (but mostly the poor of course).

Yes, lets argue that the 20% that is currently losing should just lie down and take it because people halfway across the world are doing better. That sure makes sense.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 14:47

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

Goa Tse-tung posted:

benevolent dictatorship?

Logistically impossible

# ? Feb 6, 2017 14:47

Mozi: Apr 4, 2004; Forms change so fast
Time is moving past
Memory is smoke
Gonna get wider when I die; Nap Ghost

For longer than at best a human lifetime, at any rate.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 14:58

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Zodium posted:

It's up to the modern pragmatic progressive to bend a knee and subject themselves to the authority of good and proper Crown rule once again. For King and Country, comrades.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 17:49

call to action: Jun 10, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

asdf32 posted:

Right. Look at that chart and guess which 20 percent of the world population conveniently convinced themselves the sustem has failed and is actively trying to destroy it and screw everyone else (but mostly the poor of course).

As they should. Nobody should ever accept "well the poor people in China are slightly less poor now" as a valid excuse for the complete destruction of the American middle class.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 18:39

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

The "hey you poors in America are being greedy think of the Chinese you are loving over by wanting a living wage and retirement" from liberals as the rich gobble up all the money never stops being infuriating.

Even if that was a valid argument, it's pretty rich they think that people are going to vote for that when their families are doing worse and worse.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 18:41

Mozi: Apr 4, 2004; Forms change so fast
Time is moving past
Memory is smoke
Gonna get wider when I die; Nap Ghost

I'm taking that perspective as a way of saying 'let's reform the system to make it work' as opposed to 'blow it all up,' because I am actually concerned about outcomes.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 18:43

call to action: Jun 10, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Mozi posted:

I'm taking that perspective as a way of saying 'let's reform the system to make it work' as opposed to 'blow it all up,' because I am actually concerned about outcomes.

Then maybe we should start proposing things that will reform the system instead of "proposing a reform" that looks an awful lot like blaming Americans for wanting more than Chinese slaves.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 18:47

Mozi: Apr 4, 2004; Forms change so fast
Time is moving past
Memory is smoke
Gonna get wider when I die; Nap Ghost

Getting the wealthy and powerful to pay their fair share is something that might take a revolution to accomplish and enforce but I would rather be revolutionary in that direction than in a direction that will actually give them relatively more power and influence.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:27

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

The other thing that globalization shills can't quite account for is how sustainable the growth of third world incomes will turn out to be in the face of climate change. If the first world architects of the current global order had put half the energy into establishing universal environmental regulations that they've put into trying to secure investor rights then we might not be stumbling into a civilization threatening catastrophe right now. But Liberalism has gotten so atrophied and weak that all its advocates can do is retrospectively pretend that the last 40 years aren't a failed experiment but rather a noble exercise in humanitarian charity on behalf of Chinese peasants.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:28

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Regarding the graph, how much does it account for cost of living (if at all)? Because part of what's happened in the US is that, while median wages have increased somewhat, they've been greatly outpaced by cost of things like health insurance and rent. Someone making less money in many other countries can actually end up better off because they aren't paying as much towards those necessities.

Adjusting for inflation isn't really enough to account for this, since rent/health insurance cost increases make up a much larger portion of a poor/middle class American's budget than the amount of inflation that occurs over that same time period.

So basically what I'm saying is that even if, on paper, a poor American is in the top 20% or whatever, that doesn't mean their quality of living is that high.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:51

Doc Hawkins: Jun 15, 2010; Dashing? But I'm not even moving!

SA_Avenger posted:

Can we have enlightened despotism instead?

PYF Dark Enlightenment Thinker

# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:54

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Ytlaya posted:

Regarding the graph, how much does it account for cost of living (if at all)? Because part of what's happened in the US is that, while median wages have increased somewhat, they've been greatly outpaced by cost of things like health insurance and rent. Someone making less money in many other countries can actually end up better off because they aren't paying as much towards those necessities.

Adjusting for inflation isn't really enough to account for this, since rent/health insurance cost increases make up a much larger portion of a poor/middle class American's budget than the amount of inflation that occurs over that same time period.

So basically what I'm saying is that even if, on paper, a poor American is in the top 20% or whatever, that doesn't mean their quality of living is that high.

Also that graft is missing the entirety of the recession and a general slowdown in growth including China. Basically, it is just showing the "Golden Age" of globalization.

(oh yeah, the bottom 20% did actually pretty poorly considering it is a 20 span of high global growth. Basically, the middle 49% did pretty well from manufacturing, and 1% did very well for themselves.)

Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Feb 6, 2017

# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:59

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

On the subject of healthcare spending this graph is relevant to some of the arguments this thread was having weeks back:

It could also be taken as a very rough measure of how absurdly choked up the current US economy is by parasitical special interests that use lobbying and monopoly power to redirect income to their own coffers regardless of outcomes.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:58

Cheesus: Oct 17, 2002; Let us retract the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wirebrush of enlightenment.; Yam Slacker

ToxicSlurpee posted:

She didn't want to run. She was my first choice too.

Even if she did, do we have any idea of her strength to push her agenda and push back on the previous?

It seems like Obama ran on similar rhetoric and then quickly booted everybody from his campaign (or acquiesced from the advice of the Establishment) to create a hybrid Bill Clinton/George W Bush Cabinet who helped cause the problems he railed against in the first place.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 20:01

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

Cheesus posted:

Even if she did, do we have any idea of her strength to push her agenda and push back on the previous?

It seems like Obama ran on similar rhetoric and then quickly booted everybody from his campaign (or acquiesced from the advice of the Establishment) to create a hybrid Bill Clinton/George W Bush Cabinet who helped cause the problems he railed against in the first place.

Her track record is pretty clear if you google around for a minute or two. She trumps (heh) Obama in that regard handily, his time in the senate was marked more by his speeches than his ability to create effective progressive policy.

# ? Feb 6, 2017 22:52

PIZZA.BAT: Nov 12, 2016

So I know there's almost zero chance Mark hasn't been posted itt but just in case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM

# ? Feb 7, 2017 03:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 8, 2024 11:43

Private Speech: Mar 30, 2011; I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.

Rex-Goliath posted:

So I know there's almost zero chance Mark hasn't been posted itt but just in case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM

Great advertisement for austerity right here:

https://twitter.com/LabourEoin/status/828164390264389632

the radical austerity programme started in 2010 and has been going on since

# ? Feb 7, 2017 03:52

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2016 Economic Crisis Thread - Duck and Cover?

«‹›55 »