It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
zeogold: Anyways, all of this is getting away from the basic point I was making to rt:
You can't have a blind revolution. It doesn't work.
The idea that "If everybody rebels, change will come!" is an idealistic yet unrealistic notion. History's proven why this doesn't work
A blind revolution does not work, BUT the french revolution was NOT blind. Hence having this discussion.
avatar
rtcvb32: snip
How is that relevant? I made a point to not argue whether his economic plan was good or not, just argue the facts. Don't change the subject.

You claimed it was "curious all the big banks and big corporations are backing Hillary and not backing Trump", and I provided the explanation.

You can argue his plan might lead to an unprecedented golden age in the US. The fact is that the stock market is a measure of the investors confidence in a company and/or country, and big changes like the ones he proposes, by their very nature, lead to uncertainty that shakes that confidence. This means that before his plans bear fruit, good or bad, the economy will take a hit. Period.

It's the same principle behind Brexit, which Trump himself has praised. The process to leave the EU won't begin until March, and it will only be complete two years after that, yet look at how the UK economy has responded, look at how the Pound has fallen.

Knowing that the banks are interested only in their self-preservation and short-term profits (see Financial Crisis), how is it curious that they would support the candidate that would least impact the economy by largely maintaining the status quo, and therefore, least impacting their business?
low rated
avatar
Goodaltgamer: So Trump would slap tariffs on, this will not hold up with the agreements in place. A panel would find something similar to this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28301144

What will happen?

I am extra asking it as a question.
Well he says he plans to re-negotiate, and if that fails the NAFTA will be removed and a new trade deal will come about.

Immediate effects? Not sure. Either all imports stop, or prices are going to raise or normalize. Trade outright stopping wouldn't last for that long. If it does, well we'll just have to start making what we can inside the US rather than getting it from outside.

Let's assume there's a tariff or raise taxes, probably for the majority of people either little effect will be seen, or people will have to just enjoy a little bit less entertainment in order to buy their more expensive imported/native goods. The poor? They probably won't be affected too much if they can still get their things second hand. Diets may change with importation of bananas and exotic foods being removed for a while. Hell people might garden more :P

Now let's assume trade entirely stops. Well sooner or later we have to make stuff, so steel and other mills will open back up, and then manufacturing will happen (and jobs too!), and for a couple years things will slowly get back on track. Mind you this won't include heavily electronic items, tablets, phones, TV's, monitors, chips, cars, etc will probably not happen, so for a few years we might have to rely on the hardware we have or used hardware (oh my god, not the top of the line computers! I'll die!). But trade will resume sooner or later for things the US can't make.

Stock market, national debt and other considerations? I don't know, there's a bubble and it's either going to get lowered and resolved or burst (sooner or later).
avatar
tinyE: Oh, that Arthur. Well then I'm not worthless. :P I thought you were talking about the movie.
avatar
zeogold: ...there was a movie?
Dudley Moore, Liza Minnelli? Ring a bell?

John Gielgud won an Oscar for it.
avatar
Goodaltgamer: Actually wrong, they did had a plan, BUT it failed as too much power was in the hands of a few, a thing which America didn't had. There was NO churches, there was ONLY one church!. And if THIS church said something is HAD to be followed. So even worse of what you could even THINK off being bad in the bible belt. Most of France was following THIS church. One thing what the revolution did TRY to break!
It would be the same as if a party in the US NOWADAYS would say to the bankers/hedge-fonds you have to give up your wealth, right now. Can you see this happening? And even this is not getting close enough.
I know you zeogold, but you do see this part too much through some rosy tainted glasses ;)
The problem in Europe was really the church and clergy.

Hence my question which you did not answer for freedom of religion and the basis for this.
You mean too much power in the hands of too MANY, and too many who were completely chaotic.

As far as the church goes, I understand that was one of the contributing factors leading UP to the revolution, but DURING it, to my knowledge they actually had a small crusade against Catholics and the authority of the clergy. As to what influence they had other than that, I honestly can't say I know anything about due to not being well enough informed on the subject.




As far as freedom of religion goes as well as a couple other points you've made, I'd go into more detail on this argument, but I honestly don't know enough specifics of either revolution to really make any entirely reasonable judgments, and again, it gets away from the basic point I was making to OP, which I assume you agree with unless you'd like to say otherwise. All we're really doing here is just nitpicking on the specifics of both, which is...not really what I wanted to get at.
Post edited October 31, 2016 by zeogold
low rated
avatar
DaCostaBR: You claimed it was "curious all the big banks and big corporations are backing Hillary and not backing Trump", and I provided the explanation.
Hillary's 'I'm going to tax the rich even more' and 'I'm going to tax the middle class' seems to not quite make sense since it's those same corporations and banks that will get taxed more are Funding Hillary. Unless she of course signs waivers for donors that then don't have to be taxed during her presidency.
avatar
zeogold: ...there was a movie?
avatar
tinyE: Dudley Moore, Liza Minnelli? Ring a bell?

John Gielgud won an Oscar for it.
Never even heard of it.
avatar
tinyE: Dudley Moore, Liza Minnelli? Ring a bell?

John Gielgud won an Oscar for it.
avatar
zeogold: Never even heard of it.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
low rated
Kleetus News, the knew news.

Shocking story, world exclusive: Disturbing reports flooding in that Madagascan Iraqi, tinyE, has joined IS and now uses the pseudonym tinyIED.

Video and audio has also surfaced of tinyIED taunting the coalition and boasting that he's too li'l to find.

Authorities have warned the public not to approach anyone smaller than 2 inches, and to stay a safe distance as "tinyIED has an explosive temper and may blow up in anger".

Kleetus News, the knew news.
avatar
zeogold: You mean too much power in the hands of too MANY, and too many who were completely chaotic.

As far as the church goes, I understand that was one of the contributing factors leading UP to the revolution, but DURING it, to my knowledge they actually had a small crusade against Catholics and the authority of the clergy. As to what influence they had other than that, I honestly can't say I know anything about due to not being well enough informed on the subject.

As far as freedom of religion goes as well as a couple other points you've made, I'd go into more detail on this argument, but I honestly don't know enough specifics of either revolution to really make any entirely reasonable judgments, and again, it gets away from the basic point I was making to OP, which I assume you agree with unless you'd like to say otherwise. All we're really doing here is just nitpicking on the specifics of both, which is...not really what I wanted to get at.
No, not in the hand of too many.
And your knowledge is wrong. If you have never been to Europe or have seen places like this, it is hard to grasp.
First: it was NO crusade AGAINST Catholics, it was about the power the CHURCH hold over the state. The church was a state in the state and quite often having more to say than the state himself, even the KING could not go against the church. It is hard to grasp, but that is what you have to understand. Do a really really small extend the bible belt is similar, but only faintly similar, imagine it like a 100 fold (or think of a state like Iran, theocracy) but the catholic church being it.

And this brings me back to why the french revolution is a bad example for what you want to show that an emotional revolutions is failed from the beginning.

The best comparison for this nowadays would be banks/military complexes. And rtcvb32
avatar
rtcvb32: snip
You are just showing that the person whom you are arguing AGAINST is actually just trying to do this. The problem there is that YOUR elected people senators and whatever (here again GOP) is actually trying to prevent this. You did here of trickle down? You did here about the amount of money being withheld from the government?

So coming back to a revolution: slave revolts like the one around Spartacus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus
They do prove more your point. A mindless revolution. (I did bring up ideas for later, much much later)

And further rtcvb32, your favourite person Trump, did you look at his assets? Don't you think there is some sort of conflict of interest?
He has admitted to lobbying and paid a fine, are you not a bit concerned?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization
Talking about lobbying, are you not concerned about that he will not do again the same thing he did already?
And just saying revolution, will not really change anything.
I am just talking about your opinion, not what somebody else brought up!
avatar
rtcvb32: Hillary's 'I'm going to tax the rich even more' and 'I'm going to tax the middle class' seems to not quite make sense since it's those same corporations and banks that will get taxed more are Funding Hillary. Unless she of course signs waivers for donors that then don't have to be taxed during her presidency.
She proposes a 4% increase on people that earn more than $5m, which amounts to a lot less money lost for the banks than a real economic downturn and trading halt. And what you yourself described in your post to Goodaltgamer is a nightmare scenario to banks, of course they will support the candidate that opposes it. She's just the safest and most stable choice for their business.
Post edited October 31, 2016 by DaCostaBR
avatar
rtcvb32: To my understanding, Taxes imposed on imports/exports is what gave the government money up until Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA deal. Every country right now has import taxes (except the US).

Imposing the 35% taxes on imports is to keep jobs and businesses from moving to Mexico, which currently there's nothing stopping them from leaving. Trump calls it the greatest job's theft in history. You make knifes? Well China has cheaper labor and resources, so they make knifes and import them at 0% tax and people will tend to buy cheaper knifes. 35% current taxes in the US and lower taxes elsewhere? It makes sense to move businesses to where it's cheaper, especially if there's no downside.

Imposing penalties where it's cheaper to make something in the US than to import it will have a LOT more jobs in the US. Although it may take a couple years for the jobs to build up and return. This is his trade deal plans (or so far as I understand it). To continue with our current course only leads to bankruptcy, followed by war (although war might be started to keep the bankruptcy from being noticed as much).
Let's leave the part of NAFTA aside:

Let's assume he would put tariffs on, you think the WTO will agree?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization

Let's see what they for example already decided on a similar topic:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28301144

So, how will this EMPTY phrase help anything?

But coming back to I think your ORIGINAL question: Why did all the jobs disappear? Who is to blame for this?

Have a look at those two:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity

Do NOT read anything else up or look anything else up.

Just read it, digest it and tell me what you think! Will ya? ;)
Goodaltgamer, STOP IT!

It's not nice to make fun of the mentally ill, or in his case, the clinically brain dead.
low rated
avatar
tinyE: .
You Iraqis, you kill me.

Please don't detonate, it was just a figure of speech.
avatar
tinyE: Goodaltgamer, STOP IT!

It's not nice to make fun of the mentally ill, or in his case, the clinically brain dead.
TinyE, that was harsh. Sorry ;)
And I am not making fun off him. I am trying to discuss it with him and see what will come out off it.

And I don't think he is as you describe him. He does have some valid points about faults in main stream media. I think we can agree on this. I think we can also agree that a few other points he put up have a certain value in it as well.

So let's see and let's wait, would you, pleaaase ;)