Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

JEB_Stuart wrote:You can't deny that the US not only wastes more then any other country in the world, but that our economy is almost completely abstract. Our industrial capacity is pretty much done for, we don't export nearly as much as we should, and we are falling further and further in to debt. Basic economics indicates that this is not a wise road to take. You are right Shuma, we are in a consumerist model for our economy, but you are wrong in not pointing out that it is a poor model at best, or a dangerous one at worst.If you think that he was using the purchase of cellphones as the cause of waste then you are either willfully ignoring his use of one example in order to put him down or you are naive. He makes an excellent point about waste and how people don't save money or value what they have, and that should have been acknowledged....

Of course we waste more than any other country, we have something close to the population and GDP output of the european union. However our economy is far from abstract, while we lack the incredible industrial output of china we still produce a significant amount of physical goods by comparison to other western countries. However production of physical goods are not all that exist. We pioneer and sell a vast amount of technology throughout the word, we are the leaders in every form of entertainment and production software by a massive margin, we are hugely dominant in virtually every other form of entertainment industry as well. On top of all that we are the planets breadbasket. We produce more food and export more food than any other nation on earth by a significant margin. The view that "Oh we don't make very many shirts any more" and "We just throw away the things we buy" is such a limited and inaccurate view of the modern globalized economic model that it's not worth interacting with. Pure production economies are not particularly well protected from economic downturns as Germany or perhaps more important Japan showed us recently. The reason we are starting to fail (though it's true that it's been occurring for a lengthy period of time) is firstly uninforced "free trade" agreements with countries like china and Taiwan which are in aggregate losing us money overtime through the trade deficit, however a nation can run trade deficits and still grow so long as it's internal economic model is sufficient to support such a thing (as Americas should be). By in large our problem isn't outsourcing to developing nations, it's a developed nation, China, artificially maintaining the low value of it's currency, thus (questionably at the cost of it's own peoples wellbeing, though the concept of providing more jobs vs providing better paying jobs is a conversation in itself) promoting itself as the worlds greatest material goods exporter on the planet. We can not produce things in competition with a developed nation like china when it is willing to keep it's own people poorer in order to ensure the continued growth of it's production economy, the idea that Americans simply produce "better" goods is wrong. Our high quality goods then need to compete with a significant number of other developed nations that specialize in the same thing (Cars in America, Japan, And Germany for example) and they need to be able to do it more cheaply than the competition, the efficiency of which is something Americans have seemingly forgotten how to manage (though the collapse is actually bringing a lot of that back as Ford and Microsoft are showing).


We are not going to "cure" our economy until china stops holding its currency. However they are not going to stop buying ours until they have no other choice, when they do their own will begin to rise and we wont be there to buy their goods any more. It's a symbiotic relationship right now, they are just at the advantage. To advocate "Buy American" is to go towards trade protectionism, which while helpful sometimes is a very, very, dangerous road, as the perception of protectionism by the most powerful economy on earth abroad will cause all it's competitors to do the same. Which is a race to the bottom.

JEB_Stuart wrote:You can't deny that the US not only wastes more then any other country in the world, but that our economy is almost completely abstract.

Well, you can deny it, because waste is hardly an easily defined concept. Are you claiming that waste is anything that is thrown away, or that waste is anything that is thrown away unnecessarily?

Incidentally, if its the former, Canada produces the most waste in the world. If its the latter, defined by household waste, Denmark produces the most.

As for an abstract economy, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the way our financial system works, or the fact that we rely on service industries?

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Our industrial capacity is pretty much done for, we don't export nearly as much as we should, and we are falling further and further in to debt.

The fact that we don't export on balance with imports has more to do with the lack of global demand, in concert with high domestic production costs, than anything else. As demand rises abroad, and the cost to manufacture decreases domestically (most likely through improved manufacturing techniques), our net exports should increase. If they don't it will simply be a function of shipping costs vis a vis our geographic position. There's a case in that for establishing better relations with South America, but that's another thread.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Basic economics indicates that this is not a wise road to take.

I'm not sure what you mean by basic economics. But assuming you're referring to classical theory: I'll just say that economics doesn't work like a science. Principles which are taught as foundational can be, and very often are, invalidated by more advanced models. Classical theory doesn't have a whole lot to say about our current situation because it was never designed to account for information as a commodity, or even the ability to outsource domestically owned production.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
You are right Shuma, we are in a consumerist model for our economy, but you are wrong in not pointing out that it is a poor model at best, or a dangerous one at worst.

The fact that we live in a consume economy is irrelevant. All that tells us is the method by which we determine what to purchase, and therefore to produce. The point you're trying to make is that we don't produce enough of what we have determined to purchase, and (probably) that we show little sensitivity to international markets. Though, as I said above, that's a function of US cost of living, and cultural bias, exceeding that which can supported by the wages derived from manufacturing positions.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
If you think that he was using the purchase of cellphones as the cause of waste then you are either willfully ignoring his use of one example in order to put him down or you are naive. He makes an excellent point about waste and how people don't save money or value what they have, and that should have been acknowledged....

Any discussion of personal value is largely pointless. There's no way to measure it, and no way to arrive at any conclusive point beyond "I think people should value possession less/more/as much as they value possession." as supported by anecdotal preference.

It should also be pointed out that the desire possess more, and therefore to consume, is derived from having a high degree of value with respect to possessions.

As far as saving money goes, you have a point. Though its a point that invalidates any discussion of waste.

ShumaGorath wrote:Of course we waste more than any other country, we have something close to the population and GDP output of the european union.

So you are saying its ok to waste? One a person to person ratio, we waste more then anyone else. That is bad for both the environment and for our natural resources...

ShumaGorath wrote:However our economy is far from abstract, while we lack the incredible industrial output of china we still produce a significant amount of physical goods by comparison to other western countries.

Like say Germany who, up until two years ago, was the World's largest exporter?

ShumaGorath wrote:However production of physical goods are not all that exist. We pioneer and sell a vast amount of technology throughout the word, we are the leaders in every form of entertainment and production software by a massive margin, we are hugely dominant in virtually every other form of entertainment industry as well.

True, but there are other outlets that are rapidly growing. Germany, France, China and Bollywood are growing at an unbelievable pace in terms of entertainment.

ShumaGorath wrote:On top of all that we are the planets breadbasket. We produce more food and export more food than any other nation on earth by a significant margin. The view that "Oh we don't make very many shirts any more" and "We just throw away the things we buy" is such a limited and inaccurate view of the modern globalized economic model that it's not worth interacting with.

Considering the US's Ag industry accounts for less then 1% of our GDP, and a major portion, if not a slim majority, of the food we produce for export is given away as charity, that isn't exactly the strongest point to rely on.

ShumaGorath wrote:Pure production economies are not particularly well protected from economic downturns as Germany or perhaps more important Japan showed us recently. The reason we are starting to fail (though it's true that it's been occurring for a lengthy period of time) is firstly unenforced "free trade" agreements with countries like china and Taiwan which are in aggregate losing us money overtime through the trade deficit, however a nation can run trade deficits and still grow so long as it's internal economic model is sufficient to support such a thing (as Americas should be).

Well when a country like China owns around 20% of our national debt, it makes it a bit hard to enforce trade agreements. Germany and Japan have both had major economic problems for years, they have just recently gotten much worse. Double digit unemployment there is nothing new, and has been the status quo for some time.

ShumaGorath wrote:We are not going to "cure" our economy until china stops holding its currency. However they are not going to stop buying ours until they have no other choice, when they do their own will begin to rise and we wont be there to buy their goods any more. It's a symbiotic relationship right now, they are just at the advantage. To advocate "Buy American" is to go towards trade protectionism, which while helpful sometimes is a very, very, dangerous road, as the perception of protectionism by the most powerful economy on earth abroad will cause all it's competitors to do the same. Which is a race to the bottom.

Who said anything about protectionism? Not me, that's for sure. Anyway, the whole point of your argument is still somewhat fuzzy. So yes, we produce movies and music, and we grow a lot of corn, that still doesn't make much sense in terms of a truly strong economy. You seem to be arguing more for the relative influence of the US, instead of the durability and strength of our economy. The model that we currently have set up is reliant on cheap expendable labour, which we can use to make cheap products. Since the level of poverty in the world is starting to go down, we can see that this model is not going to last forever. This is especially true considering the limited options we have in terms of countries that have the industrial capability that is necessary to fuel the West's appetite. I am instead advocating a much more balanced approach to the economy, forgoing some of our spoiled tendencies and being less inclined to spend all the time. I personally believe in saving money and wisely budgeting out what you have. If Americans would live below their means there wouldn't be major problems with credit crunches or the like.

Personal value does have some weight in arguing waste. If you are a person who sees a cell phone as just something to have to communicate and then throw away when something faster/better/more feature rich comes along than of course you won't value ANYTHING.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=electronic-waste-control

This article explains it. We are one of the largest producers of electronic waste in the world but we are the worst at disposal and recycling of said waste. So my point stands. It is very sad to know that we are using up our VERY LIMITED fossil fuels to produce all the plastics that just end up laying in a landfill somewhere awaiting export to china so they can benefit from our greed and wastefulness.

It might be how the economic model is but it doesn't make it right NOR does it make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. My point was that we are wasteful, not that I don't agree it doesn't make our country money and that we COULD still be a world power producing 80% less waste than we do, we just don't want to or care that we are so wasteful (vast majority anyway, not trying to paint a broad stroke here).

So you are saying its ok to waste? One a person to person ratio, we waste more then anyone else. That is bad for both the environment and for our natural resources...

Read Dogmas post!

Like say Germany who, up until two years ago, was the World's largest exporter?

Export and production are very different things.

True, but there are other outlets that are rapidly growing. Germany, France, China and Bollywood are growing at an unbelievable pace in terms of entertainment.

Please cite something when you're going to use the term "unbelievable". Otherwise people won't believe you because you said it wasn't real.

Considering the US's Ag industry accounts for less then 1% of our GDP, and a major portion, if not a slim majority, of the food we produce for export is given away as charity, that isn't exactly the strongest point to rely on.

Sorry, I thought I said produced. Not "How much of our GDP it makes up".

Well when a country like China owns around 20% of our national debt, it makes it a bit hard to enforce trade agreements. Germany and Japan have both had major economic problems for years, they have just recently gotten much worse. Double digit unemployment there is nothing new, and has been the status quo for some time.

Then get used to it, things aren't that bad right now, even in this time of downturn. By shoring up our practices in relation to banking and production efficiency we can just keep on chugging, it doesn't take some sort of massive paradigm shift in how we run ourselves to fix things up a bit. It just takes tighter regulation in the financial industries.

Who said anything about protectionism? Not me, that's for sure. Anyway, the whole point of your argument is still somewhat fuzzy. So yes, we produce movies and music, and we grow a lot of corn, that still doesn't make much sense in terms of a truly strong economy.

It makes as much sense as any other production argument.

You seem to be arguing more for the relative influence of the US, instead of the durability and strength of our economy. The model that we currently have set up is reliant on cheap expendable labour, which we can use to make cheap products. Since the level of poverty in the world is starting to go down, we can see that this model is not going to last forever.

At which time we will begin producing domestically again, causing prices to rise hand in hand with increased domestic pay from those industries (which are typically untrained), welcome to globalized economics. I'm arguing that we are far into the swing of a foreign import economy, and that it's not going to change any time soon, no matter how much everyone gnashes their teeth.

This is especially true considering the limited options we have in terms of countries that have the industrial capability that is necessary to fuel the West's appetite.

What does that sentence even mean? There are literally hundreds of countries "capable" of fueling the wests appetite (which is an erroneous term anyway, japan is not western, nor is china or india and they have all the same "appetites").

I am instead advocating a much more balanced approach to the economy, forgoing some of our spoiled tendencies and being less inclined to spend all the time. I personally believe in saving money and wisely budgeting out what you have. If Americans would live below their means there wouldn't be major problems with credit crunches or the like.

When everyone saves everyone loses money because everyone stops buying what everyone is producing and everyone starts to lose their jobs. Do you know what caused the credit downturn to become something globally destructive? People started saving because they figured their money would be worth more tomorrow. Thats not how capitalism works, some saving is a good thing, but you're seemingly not suggesting that, you're somehow labeling "responsibility" as "saving" and telling people to go do it. You're not actually advocating anything because you are painting with far too broad of a brush and talking about an act that is anathema to the idea of capitalism (saving lot's of money).

JEB_Stuart wrote:Like say Germany who, up until two years ago, was the World's largest exporter?

They still are. We're third, incidentally. Its not that we don't export anything. Its that we import far more than we export by virtue of high demand.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
If Americans would live below their means there wouldn't be major problems with credit crunches or the like.

We'd also have a whole ton of wasted economic potential. In any case, its pointless to advocate a cultural change. No one will listen to you unless they have cause to do so, and that cause will only be provided by a shift towards an economy of unskilled labor, which itself will only reach preponderance with the rise of markets in the rest of the world.

dogma wrote:
Well, you can deny it, because waste is hardly an easily defined concept. Are you claiming that waste is anything that is thrown away, or that waste is anything that is thrown away unnecessarily?

Incidentally, if its the former, Canada produces the most waste in the world. If its the latter, defined by household waste, Denmark produces the most.

Where do you get your figures? The US consistently shows up as the most wasteful country and people in the world. Neither Canada nor Denmark even show up in the Top 10. Here is one source:http://greenanswers.com/q/63410/recycling-waste/garbage/what-countries-produce-most-trash/ The US, despite being less then 5% of the world's population, produces over 30% of the world's waste. We throw more food, furniture, tools, etc away every year then anyone else.

dogma wrote:As for an abstract economy, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the way our financial system works, or the fact that we rely on service industries?

A little bit of both. I will admit that when I was younger the concept of our financial system was almost as baffling as the Mystery of the Trinity...at least I figured our financial system out.

dogma wrote:The fact that we don't export on balance with imports has more to do with the lack of global demand, in concert with high domestic production costs, than anything else. As demand rises abroad, and the cost to manufacture decreases domestically (most likely through improved manufacturing techniques), our net exports should increase. If they don't it will simply be a function of shipping costs vis a vis our geographic position. There's a case in that for establishing better relations with South America, but that's another thread.

Agreed, that is what I have always thought. I have been advocating more advanced methods of manufacturing, especially through robotics, for some time now...But yes, better for another thread.

dogma wrote:The fact that we live in a consume economy is irrelevant. All that tells us is the method by which we determine what to purchase, and therefore to produce. The point you're trying to make is that we don't produce enough of what we have determined to purchase, and (probably) that we show little sensitivity to international markets. Though, as I said above, that's a function of US cost of living, and cultural bias, exceeding that which can supported by the wages derived from manufacturing positions.

Your not preaching something to me that I don't already know or think. Except for the consumer model. There are some major ethical issues that it raises, and other things as well, but I really don't have the energy to go in depth on every post I make today...and those issues are another thread...

dogma wrote:Any discussion of personal value is largely pointless. There's no way to measure it, and no way to arrive at any conclusive point beyond "I think people should value possession less/more/as much as they value possession." as supported by anecdotal preference.

I like how you took a few words and made that into my main point. That is not even close to what I was saying, and I hesitated putting it in there in the first place.

dogma wrote:As far as saving money goes, you have a point. Though its a point that invalidates any discussion of waste.

Do tell why....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

They still are. We're third, incidentally. Its not that we don't export anything. Its that we import far more than we export by virtue of high demand.

Wrong again, even the WTO declared that China surpassed Germany as the world's largest exporter. http://en.mercopress.com/2009/08/31/china-surpasses-germany-as-the-worlds-largest-exporter Yes, I also knew the US' standing as well...

Fateweaver wrote:Personal value does have some weight in arguing waste. If you are a person who sees a cell phone as just something to have to communicate and then throw away when something faster/better/more feature rich comes along than of course you won't value ANYTHING.

No, its just means that you value cutting edge technology. It doesn't mean that you don't value cell phones, as you're clearly purchasing a cell phone, and therefore assigning it value.

The reason personal value has no bearing on overall waste is that it can't be measured. We can discuss per capita waste, but that's different.

My point is that it's waste. No matter how you slice it that person throwing their old cell phone away every few months when something new comes out is being wasteful and that is a problem due to us being a wasteful society.

It doesn't matter WHY waste is created, what matters is that it IS created. I'm not a tree hugging hippie by any stretch of the imagination but economically sound or not our current economic model is NOT something to be proud of.

Producing more waste than any other nation in the world, creating low income jobs for the many foreigners and illegals in this country just because we as Americans are too damn worried about spending a few dollars/pennies more to get something of quality is a huge flaw in how our economy works. There is a reason retail chains like Wal-mart and Target thrive. It's due to the fact they cater to low quality goods and lots of Chinese imported goods to draw in people who don't care about quality and just buy cheap so they can justify throwing away whatever they bought without feeling guilty.

Not saying it's bad too import and export but when most of a nations goods are produced outside of that said nation (like the US) and relies on it's neighbors to provide it with goods and services that itself won't provide that is a recipe for that nation slicing it's own throat.

Fateweaver wrote:
It doesn't matter WHY waste is created, what matters is that it IS created. I'm not a tree hugging hippie by any stretch of the imagination but economically sound or not our current economic model is NOT something to be proud of.

Of course the reason for creation is important. If waste is created because its a natural component of the industrial chain, then it isn't waste in the same sense as someone who sits around throwing $100 bills on a fire. Yeah, some people purchase new cell phones out of technological fetishism, but I doubt that contingent represents the majority of people. Don't mistake features which you have no need of for useless features.

Fateweaver wrote:
Producing more waste than any other nation in the world,

We don't, per capita, and that's the measure which is important.

Fateweaver wrote:
There is a reason retail chains like Wal-mart and Target thrive. It's due to the fact they cater to low quality goods and lots of Chinese imported goods to draw in people who don't care about quality and just buy cheap so they can justify throwing away whatever they bought without feeling guilty.

Dude, my designer shirts are, almost always, made in Asia. The origin of a product has no bearing on its quality. Wal-Mart and Target thrive because they offer cheap products, which are of similar quality to those items offered in more expensive department stores.

Fateweaver wrote:
Not saying it's bad too import and export but when most of a nations goods are produced outside of that said nation (like the US) and relies on it's neighbors to provide it with goods and services that itself won't provide that is a recipe for that nation slicing it's own throat.

No, its a recipe for a nation which will eventually have to enter the global economy on even footing with its competitors as those competitors rise in overall prominence. When it becomes cost effective to produce goods here, we will produce goods here.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Where do you get your figures? The US consistently shows up as the most wasteful country and people in the world. Neither Canada nor Denmark even show up in the Top 10.

You're looking at gross statistics. I don't care about gross statistics. I care about per-capita ones, or per-interval ones.

The US statistics I used (4.5 pounds per day) came from here.

I got my initial statistics pertaining to Canada from here, and then used Canadian populations statistics and a daily interval to refine them.

I got my statistics on Denmark, among others, from here, and used the same methods as per the Canadian case to refine them.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
I like how you took a few words and made that into my main point. That is not even close to what I was saying, and I hesitated putting it in there in the first place.

I didn't make it into your main point, but it was a point you made, which lead me to address it. When you say the word 'people' and attach abstract notions like 'value' you are making a comment about personal behavior, and preferences.

dogma wrote:Do tell why....

From an individual perspective waste can be considered in terms of opportunity cost, as well as actual cost. Its a waste of opportunity, and ultimately currency, if you're simply saving money for the sake of saving money when your interests direct you towards alternative behavior.

Unless you're making a moral argument, and not an economic one?

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Wrong again, even the WTO declared that China surpassed Germany as the world's largest exporter. http://en.mercopress.com/2009/08/31/china-surpasses-germany-as-the-worlds-largest-exporter Yes, I also knew the US' standing as well...

Second sentence in your link:

Independent experts including a WTO economist have said it is still too early to say China would remain ahead of Germany by the end of this year.

Doesn't matter who is in office - the president is going to rank badly on public opinion polls since this is the worst economic period the US of A has faced since The Great Depression. Doesn't help that Faux News and basically the entire right has tried to demonize Obama but thats the nature of the game in this convoluted popularity contest aka partisan politics.

Fateweaver wrote:My point is that it's waste. No matter how you slice it that person throwing their old cell phone away every few months when something new comes out is being wasteful and that is a problem due to us being a wasteful society.

Cellphones have gone through an evolution to encompass the function of a camera, datebook (the PDA is dead. Long live the PDA.), and communication tool combining three devices into one. This one device uses less materials, and creates less waste at its end of life. That a person cycles through hardware rapidly could as easily be due to a lack of due care as consumer interest. Replacing a phone quarterly is an expensive proposition reflecting on an individual rather than consumer trends. The lifespan of a cellphone is as much a function of design as technology. Batteries tend to last between 5-800 discharge/recharge cycles - oddly close to the contract length of the phone and iterations of Moore's Law.

It doesn't matter WHY waste is created, what matters is that it IS created.

Humanity does not have the technology for total recycling. It is not currently cost effective for all commodities or materials.

Not saying it's bad too import and export... a recipe for that nation slicing it's own throat.

And when America chooses to produce products at a similar price point, I'd be glad to buy locally. I buy meats from my local butcher, lean toward local seasonal vegetables, but there's nobody that produces a phone here in the US. No supply means I have to meet my demand elsewhere thus feeding a global economy.

Which beggars the question: Why isn't it made here? Profit. Labor (I blame unions! But for another thread) and manufacturing are simply more cost effective elsewhere. Consumers aren't the villains in the story though. Without demand there would be no need to supply. Neither is that guy who is running the Executive Branch. He's the Janitor, and nobody's happy with how fast he's cleaning up.

Oldgrue wrote:I'll accept Cynicism over Hyperbole.

Are Americans willing to work hard?

What planet are you on? A 60 week is average for me. In my younger days I did 70 - 80 every god damn week. I don't know anyone outside that patheticness of government employees, that works under 50 hours.

What planet are you on? .... I don't know anyone outside that patheticness of government employees, that works under 50 hours.

I can't begin to speculate why you have such a difficult life as to necessitate 60+ hour weeks.
I work for private business, am not eligible for overtime, as efficient as my business processes allow, and strangely my work gets done right in 40 hours.
Perhaps I haven't reached a level of diminishing returns you have, or am highly efficient in those 40 hours. Alternatively I'm a magical internet fairy and nothing ever breaks.

Frazzled wrote:

Oldgrue wrote:I'll accept Cynicism over Hyperbole.

Are Americans willing to work hard?

What planet are you on? A 60 week is average for me. In my younger days I did 70 - 80 every god damn week. I don't know anyone outside that patheticness of government employees, that works under 50 hours.

Either thats hyperbole or you live in some sort of Bizarre raegannesque super U.S. that none of us live in.

Not at all. There are a lot of folks that do end up working 60 hour weeks. A company cellphone and Laptop tend to increase the number of hours put in for a company - typically ten more amongst the salaried. Or maybe he works in sales?

Edit: punctuation.
Edit 2: and link.

Frazzled wrote:What planet are you on? A 60 week is average for me. In my younger days I did 70 - 80 every god damn week. I don't know anyone outside that patheticness of government employees, that works under 50 hours.

I'm a Pathetic.

I work on Traffic Signals, so I will be out in a January snow storm at three in the morning because some drunk decides to stop on top of the signal, instead in front of it. Most of Worker-Bee Pathetics are in the same position. Your target is really Paper-Pushing Pathetics, who are strictly 8-5ers. The real difference is that we usually put in our eight hours and then several weeks during the year do 80 to 100. It sort of evens out.

Mod hat on

Let's bring this back to the original topic guys.

Whilst the volume of waste and economic discussions of US consumerism are interesting, they have strayed far from the original thread.

HOLY CRAP

I swear off OT for months and step in here and its 180!

People advocating Ron Paul!

I will be visiting more often.

Well, despite his unpopularity, his healthcare bill looks like it is in a good position to get passed.

Vladsimpaler wrote:Well, despite his unpopularity, his healthcare bill looks like it is in a good position to get passed.

Oh that will get passed no matter how much the people scream and shout.

Suddenly doesnt feel democracy in here.

It's not democracy, it's representative democracy. They work differently. Everyone who opposes the bill should write to their representative, since you do not have individual votes.

Obama is unpopular now for a handful of very basic reasons:

1) He was mostly elected as "not bush". Since then, things haven't changed very much.

2) The economy is awful. Not just bad for people in construction and manufacturing, but bad to the point that hardly anybody from my law school graduating class has an actual job as, you know, a lawyer.

3) There's no real history with Obama. With some presidents, they've been around the national scene and have long enough resumes that people are more likely to cut them a break. Reagan and GHW Bush were like that, while Obama's #1 resume line before president was backing into a Senate seat when his opponent had a nasty sex scandal. The point is, there's a time with a president like Obama that every moderate goes "maybe the kid's in over his head."

I grew up in michigan, and kept my legal residency there until a few years back. Jennifer Granholm is in her second term as governor, but if you look at polls while she stood for reelection she rarely broke 40% approval, and still won with 55% of the vote.

The moral of the story? Just because you're the best guy for a job doesn't mean you're good at it.

I would trade that useless turd Gordon Brown in for Obama in a second.

I strongly believe in Obama, I further believe that all he is doing, he is doing to fix things and to improve his country and the planet. He is making far reaching changes and his critics are being far too impatient, the good news will be in the long run...IF he is allowed to carry out the reforms he's trying to bring about.

Which other president in recent history has inherited such a gak storm? The economic depression, the eroded personal freedoms that had taken place under the previous administration, the vast amount of damage to international relationships caused by the previous administration, wars in two nations drawing hostility from across the Islamic world, a 10 trillion debt mostly owed to major rival China.



Your country is in the crapper because George W Bush Jnr put it there.
See that massive upturn after Clinton? That's just wars and... hmmm, nothing much else to show for it, for those of you grinding your teeth and muttering about 'oh another one blaming it all on Bush'... Well, that's cos it's ACTUALLY HIS FAULT.

I hear some saying 'well, he's had a year so why hasn't he sorted it out?' and I can't really express how staggered I am with it. How do you propose he sorts out 8 years of woeful mismanagement of the world's only superpower in one year?

fething up is easy, you can do it in a day, repairing it takes far longer. There are no 'quick wins' here, it's going to take time and it's going to hurt.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Which other president in recent history has inherited such a gak storm?

That Washington guy had it rough.

GMMStudios wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Which other president in recent history has inherited such a gak storm?

That Washington guy had it rough.

I meant American recent history, not British recent history...

Oops I missed the recent history bit.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's not direct democracy, it's representative democracy. They work differently.

Fixed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The economic depression,

Just a recession, for now. A pretty nasty one, though, as far as they go.

the eroded personal freedoms that had taken place under the previous administration,

You mean as a result of the Patriot Act and such? Obama supports that.

the vast amount of damage to international relationships caused by the previous administration,

People all around the world love Obama. They gave him a Nobel peace prize. He didn't inherit the hate directed towards Bush.

wars in two nations drawing hostility from across the Islamic world,

A big problem, I agree. There's no good way to deal with something like this; and whatever the best way is probably won't be revealed until a few years after we decide what to do.

a 10 trillion debt mostly owed to major rival China.

Another problem, but he's been contributing to our debt pretty heavily himself so far.

Obama's inherited a bad situation, but so did FDR and Nixon and such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:hardly anybody from my law school graduating class has an actual job as, you know, a lawyer.

Sounds like the economy is doing great!

erm i cant fething stand that he got the nobel peece prize for doing feth all, what a prik

Well, it's not like he was complaining that no one was giving him a Nobel prize prior to being awarded it.