I disagree that free markets are highly prevalent in modern economies.

One tenant of a completely free market is the lack of asymmetrical information, that both the buyer and seller are aware of all other buyers and sellers.

In your example, the parent would know of all other kids competing for money to mow the lawn, the kid is aware of all parents seeking his services and at what price point.

This is just a small local example, this can be taken further on international levels, where it gets even more complicated as we factor in protectionist trade policy, trade agreements, trade restrictions, trade quotas and so on.

For example in the 70s, the Japanese auto industry was decimating the local auto industry in the US, the Big 3 lobbied the government to do something about it. Through negotiations the Japanese agreed to a voluntary quota system, they would import only a limited amount of their more efficient cars, this drove up their price artificially in the market, allowing them to gain alot of profit by re-branding their cars for a luxury car market known today as the Lexus.

The Big 3 gained via continued dominion of the US auto market, the Japanese gained through a new luxury auto market, while the consumer lost because market efficiency was not there, the cheapest model cars made in Japan were not available to the US consumer.

International trade fails free market ideals in many ways, since a lot of first world nations do not allow third world nations into their markets especially in terms of agriculture. In the 1920s to 1950s, there was highly restrictive trade as various international economics locked off their markets to rebuild their economics, this took over 70 years to slowly unravel via the GATT and the emergence of the WTO. However there are a lot of barriers, the G8 also have larger influence and bargaining strength over third world nations, they also understand WTO legalese better.

Now think of something that holds a large control of the market like Wallmart in the retail industry, in some areas they are the sole superstore thus this is already not a free market, everyone is forced to purchase their products at one place. This doesn't stop the seller to change their price because the consumer is dependent. This is where we can say no free market exists due to regional monopoly.

The closest we come to a free market is the stock market but only on price, all sellers and buyers know the price however not everyone knows profit forecasts, insider information, business conditions, corporate structure and so on.

>> ^spoco2
I'm not in a position to really state whether any of that is true, but if it is, and the Republicans have been in power for the last 8 years... then surely it'd be stupid to vote in more of the same leadership?
No? And if you're going to try to suggest that all the problems are because of a democrat being in office in the 1930s... please, respectfully... f ck off.
If your chosen part has been in power for the past 8 years and has done nothing but help your country sink into its own financial abyss, then have the bloody balls to accept that, don't pull some shit about someone 70 years ago causing the trouble now.
That's some serious blinker you have on there.


Though it sounds like quantum doesn't really understand what he's parroting, to those learned libertarians in world who understand the problem, he's actually kind of right and it's not as ridiculous as it sounds. It's entirely a matter of socialist big government policies that have been building over a long period of time, just waiting for someone highly corrupt to abuse them. Are you aware of the benevolent dictator argument? The idea that just because it's possible to have a benevolent dictatorship for a certain period of time, the costs of that system ultimately catch up to it because as long as those highly centralized powers EXIST, they WILL be abused by an eventual regime change and destroy the country. This is why we embrace constitutional limits on government and a system of inefficiency in which it is (supposed to be) extremely difficult for any political group to do this. Those limits started to get ignored at the turn of the 20th century and are almost all violated in some fashion today. It doesn't matter how convinced you are that your candidate is telling you the truth, some powers shouldn't exist. The system should not come down to who can pick the best dictator, and then being left with the consolation of "I told you so" when the people finally screw up and elect the wrong guy. Because there are actually two ways to do harm: through stupidity or through deceit. It's perfectly possible to be a well-intentioned, charismatic guy that is just plain wrong or ignorant how to best solve a problem. It's also possible for someone to promise to do one thing to get elected, and do the opposite once elected. People on this forum are educated enough to see #2. They're not seeing #1.

Bush is a highly corrupt individual, no question about it. But to restrict the debate to a choice between liberalism and neo-conservatism is to restrict the debate to socialism, because that's exactly what both of them are with minor differences. This population needs to understand libertarian principles, and fast. Because make no mistake, these socialist enablements and crises and scandals have plagued politics in general over the years and it was bound to come to a head sooner or later. We are in the late stages of socialism, there is nothing "regulatory" that can be done about something that is inherently fraudulent or corruptible. You simply have to understand that markets are merely individuals making mutually agreeable transactions with one another. Government's main functions are very simple, it is to make sure rights are not infringed with police/fire/national defense, and to provide a system of courts for recourse and the settlement of disputes. It is not to have its hands in every part of the market to regulate "greed," this is a nonsensical statement that assumes politicians with privileged power to forcibly appropriate money are not themselves greedy. This is the kind of idealist thinking that enables lobbying, corporatism, etc, and it's stunning that people haven't figured this out yet. The only way a person or a company can turn a profit, without infringing on people's rights, and without colluding with government-specific powers that they do not have (see:below), is to create a product/service that people will want to improve their lives with. That's it. It doesn't matter that the primary goal in a business venture is to make money in a truly free market, because the only way to make money in that system and keep it is to meet the demands of someone else. The EFFECT is that both parties benefit, even though the goals are both driven by self-interest. People are also very generous and are more apt to give excesses to charity under this system, charity was at its highest in America in the late 19th century. Because we didn't have inflation and we didn't have an income tax. Here is a short list of things that have brought us here and Ron Paul was the only one talking about any of them.

1. Centralized price fixing of interest rates by the Federal Reserve System: sends the wrong signals to investors to prevent politically inconvenient recessions, incentivizing massive misallocations of capital investment. Enables catastrophic insolvency, market scapegoating and further socialist interventions. This is THE root cause of the two market bubbles which are now collapsing, as well as the bubble that formed in the 20s and crashed in 29. This one spanned both Clinton and Bush presidencies, started with the easy money policies of the 90s that led to the tech stocks collapsing, then the inflation was filtered into real estate by Greenspan's 1% artificially low interest rates in 2000 (he also egged on the market for years, completely oblivious to what he was doing), and finally the inflation is coming home to roost in basic commodities. Borrowers are walking away and banks that invested heavily in the housing mania with are now left with mortgages that are nowhere near worth the price that they could actually sell the home. The housing market mania was so intense that people were buying homes to flip them to other people who were buying homes to flip them, until eventually, all that was left was speculative sellers with no one buying to LIVE in them other than idiots with bad credit who bought with no down payments.
2. An unconstitutional, non-market determined money: easily manufactured at no labor or material cost by the banking industry that controls it, transferring purchasing power from those who have to work for them to the recipients of this free money in wall street and in the government without asking the working man. Morally reprehensible and enables bailout legislation to deal with the insolvency that #1 causes.
3. Fractional Reserve Banking: government enables the banking industry to fraudelently loan out credit many times what it actually has in reserves and earn interest off of it. The effect cascades as a result of successive deposits of this phantom credit between banks and enables bank runs and extremely unstable leverage, creating an environment that all but necessitates an FDIC and central bank to be lender of last resort in the event of a run, which of course leads to the creation of #1.
3. Heavy subsidization: enables corporate lobbying for government handouts of forcibly appropriated money as an anti-competitive advantage
4. Income-taxation, a direct tax on production, very difficult to enforce without intimidation tactics, enables special tax credits as an anti-competitive advantage
5. Anti-competitive regulation: who's regulating the regulator? Idealist FDA powers to ban products from being chosen on the market have led to anti-competitive bans such as Stevia, resulting in health repercussions unbecoming of an agency that is supposed to protect it. Special legislation such as NAFTA, a 100-page "free-trade" agreement acting as a pretense to lower tariffs to get the WTO to raise tariffs
6. Nationalization of industry: enables predatory anti-competitive takeovers for the largest institutions of smaller institutions, enables government monopoly in industry financed by forcibly appropriated money.
7. Medicare, SS: Unsustainable, government run ponzi schemes purporting to be welfare measures. New investors paying old investors in real time, continually increasing tax rates to prolong solvency, continually changing rules about retirement age to prolong solvency. Trust fund anually tapped by congress to spend the excess by replacing them with government promises of future dollars (bonds). CPI-adjusted payouts, allowing government to underpay by understating real inflation.

And after listing all of this shit, it should be obvious to see why I'm so incensed by simple little quips like charliem's that get rated up: "unethical" loans. You want to talk about ethical lending? You think the government doing the things above under either party gives one bloody shit about ethics? Lending money is a gamble, it's a gamble you implictly allowed that bank to take by giving them your money to gamble with. Banks aren't a free storing house for money, they immediately take the money you give them and loan most of it out to someone else at interest, that's how they pay YOU interest for keeping it on their books when you could otherwise put your savings in a lockbox for a fee. But seeing as how people are cheap, ignorant bastards that have no idea how fraudulent the current system is, they will continue to ask politicians to coo-coo them with "ethics reform" and other nonsense that do nothing to solve the fundamental problems.

And let me make this dirt simple if I haven't already: you can't "regulate" or "oversee" these activities any more than you can "regulate" or "oversee" murder. It is fundamentally fraudulent to loan out something you don't have, price fixing of interest rates creates shortages of capital when people otherwise would save it, and an easily inflatable currency is nothing more than legalized counterfeiting for government and anyone who colludes with them. Wake up already.

Clinton signed deregulation and "free trade" agreements that we're paying for now, especially FANNIE and FREDDIE regulations.

If I remember right, he wasn't a republican.

...and I didn't vote for him.

>> ^imstellar28:
does it really matter? anyone who is voting for either party has already lost sight of what's really at stake.
can anyone explain to me the differences between Obama/McCain's stance on:
1. preemptive warfare
"McCain supports the Bush Doctrine and Obama opposes it"

2. increasing the size of government
McCain talks the conservative game of smaller government but has supported all of Bush's expansion of the national government
Obama wants to expand healthcare and other social programs, but says that will come at the expense of other programs (subscribves to PAYGO philosophy)
Not so clear on this one

3. FISA
Obama pissed off liberals with support of FISA
McCain seems to be obfuscating his opinion

4. federal bailouts of businesses (such as feddie mae/frannie mac)
Obama - help homeowners shore up mortgages rather than bail out companies
McCain- too big to fail, bail out companies not speculative homeowners who are whining now

5. the federal reserve
neither cnadidate represents change on this issue (although it is a bit fringe for most americans to care about)

6. personal liberties
is this the FISA question again, or are we talking abortion? too vague to disinguish differences

7. bringing all troops home from all 741 military bases
Ridiculously leading topic that assumes that isolationism is the correct strategy

8. foreign policy in afghanistan
Obama - get Bin Laden, secure AFghan/Pakistani borderlands
McCain - get Bin Laden, but not in Pakistan. Iraq matters more

9. stance on the georgia/russia conflict
Obama - 'there needs to be active international engagement to peacefully address the disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including a high-level and neutral international mediator, and a genuine international peacekeeping force – not simply Russian troops.'
McCain - Georgia conflict is the ‘first serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War.’ [RIGGGHHHT?!?] Russia's evil!

10. the ICC
Obama - consult with military commanders and examine the track record of the Court before reaching a decision on whether the U.S. should become a State Party to the ICC
McCain - 'the ICC was not set up for countries such as the U.S.'

11. inflation
gonna guess that they're both against it

12. income taxes
McCain- continue Bush cuts for wealthiest Americans, give a few pennies to those at the bottom
Obama - let Bush tax cuts expire, give tax breaks to 95% of Americans
graphical representation

13. the war on drugs
Obama - reduce sentences for dealers, needle exchange, nothing about foreign policy
McCain - stronger borders, tougher penalties and sentences, funded wars against drug producing countries (i.e., Colombia)

14. offshore drilling
Obama - can be part of energy plan if it helps gain approval
McCain - we're gonna drill our way outta this in just 2 years, wait 5 years, no 10 years (ok... never)

15. the patriot act
Obama - YES to re-authorization, NO to expanded wiretapping
McCain - YES to re-authorization, YES to expanded wiretapping

16. the graham-levin amendment
Obama - no guantanamo, yes to habeas corpus, no torture, no forced testimony
McCain - no guantanamo, no habeas corpus, no torture (but not really)

17. supported school of economics
Obama - Chicago school of economics
McCain - admitted he doesn't know much about economics

18. creationism
Obama - "religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking" from Audacity of Hope
McCain - doesn't believe in it but VP Palin sure does

19. agricultural subsidies
Obama - limit subsidies, try to get them to small farmers and not corporations
McCain - opposes subsidies, gets in the way of free trade agreements

20. social security entitlements
Obama - remove $97K cap, no privatization, no new commission
McCain - personal savings accounts, maybe raise the cap above $97K

21. the bureaucratic class
Got bored just thinking about researching this

22. national debt
Obama - repeal Bush cuts, end Iraq War, pay-as-you-go system, balanced budget
McCain - debt bad, balanced budget, stop pork and earmarks

I am more informed now, hope you are. Although that took way too long and I am a bit tired of it. If you want more, you can always start here: On the Issues.

Vote Udall!

Rep. Tom Udall voted NO in 2002 on the Iraq War, and continues to oppose it. He advocates withdrawing U.S. troops as soon as practicable.

Udall counts among his highest legislative priorities as expanding health care services, additional funding for public education, and repealing certain sections of the Patriot act.

Udall's voting record is rated 100% pro-choice by NARAL, and 93% pro-civil rights by the ACLU, 97% pro-affirmative-action by the NAACP and a D- by the NRA. He voted NO on free trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, Peru and Central American nations (CAFTA).

About.com

High-profile doesn't automatically make it anything more than a forum for discussion, does it? That only makes it in the spotlight at the moment.
And regarding ad hominem, that's the phrase of the year now, isn't it? However, everything he says that you don't agree with isn't an ad hominem attack. Neither is dodging the question.
Also, he's not belittling the guy's question. He explained what the CFR is, what it does, what the conspiracy theory is and his thoughts on it. If you think he's lying about what he said then that's a valid point to make, he's a politician after all, but what he said isn't an ad hominem attack. If he made light of anything, it was the conspiracy theory that there would be a North American union and merging of currencies, and not the guy asking it. He did eventually adress the conspiracy theory aswell as the CFR part of the question though.
If you don't think he put enough emphasis on the answer, then consider where he was and the audience's level of knowledge on the topic. This wasn't exactly a forum for debate, nor was it the Q&A session of a lecture on US trade agreements.

I'm actually shocked that the media hasn't covered Obama's campaign of contradictions. He projects himself as a great Unifier. He uses the metaphor of his race to argue that he is uniquely suited to bridge differences between liberals and conservatives, young and old, rich and poor. Yet his actual agenda is highly partisan and seems to undermine many of his stated goals.

He wants to stimulate economic growth, but his hostility toward trade agreements threatens export-led growth

He advocates energy independence but pretends this can occur without more domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

Of course maybe that's the defining mark of a true politician, being able to speak to one side while the other hears a different message.

Here's some questions for both Dem frontrunners, via columnist Lawrence Elder. Why does the mainstream media focus on this fluff while issues with real impact go unaddressed?

Don't Obama supporters also deserve straight answers?

As of March 2008, kids applying for a job at Burger King have been given tougher interview questions (+ a drug test) than Clintobama.


1. Sen. Clinton, you oppose the Bush tax cuts because they unfairly benefit the rich. Since the top 1 percent of taxpayers -- those making more than $364,000 annually -- pay 39 percent of all federal income taxes, don't all across-the-board tax cuts, by definition, "unfairly" benefit the rich?

2. Sen. Obama, you also oppose Bush tax cuts, and claim that they take money away from the Treasury. But President Kennedy signed across-the-board tax cuts in the 1960s and said, "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." Was he wrong?

3. Sen. Clinton, you criticize President Bush for inheriting a surplus and turning it into a deficit. The National Taxpayers Union added up your campaign promises, and they came to an increase of over $218 billion per year. What would this do to the deficit?

4. Sen. Obama, if elected, you promised to raise minimum wage every single year. But isn't it true that most economists -- 90 percent, according to one survey -- believe that raising minimum wages increases unemployment and decreases job opportunities for the most unskilled workers? What makes you right, and the majority of economists wrong?

5. Sen. Clinton, you want universal health care coverage for all Americans -- every man, woman and child. When, as First Lady, you tried to do this, 560 economists wrote President Clinton, and said, "Price controls produce shortages, black markets and reduced quality." One economist who helped gather the signatures explained, "Price controls don't control the true costs of goods. People pay in other ways." Are those 560 economists wrong?

6. Sen. Obama, you once said you understand why senators voted for the Iraq war, admitted that you were "not privy to Senate intelligence reports," that it "was a tough question and a tough call" for the senators, and that you "didn't know" how you would have voted had you been in the Senate. And over a year after the war began, you said, "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." How, then, can you say that you consistently opposed the war from the start?

7. Sen. Clinton, you want to begin withdrawing the troops within the first 60 days of your administration, with all the troops out within a year. Former Secretary of State Jim Baker of the Baker-Hamilton report said that such a precipitous withdrawal in Iraq would create a staging ground for al-Qaida, increase the influence of Iran over Iraq, and result in "the biggest civil war you've ever seen." What would you like to say to Secretary Baker?

8. Sen. Obama, the church you attend, according to its Web site, pursues an Afrocentric agenda. Your church rejects, as part of their "Black Value System," "middleclassness" as "classic methodology" of white "captors" to "control subjugated" black "captives." Your pastor, Jeremiah Wright, recently called the Nation of Islam's Minister Louis Farrakhan -- a man many consider anti-Semitic -- a person of "integrity and honesty." What would happen to a Republican candidate who attended a Caucasian-centric church, and who praised David Duke as a man of "integrity and honesty"?

9. Sen. Clinton, you recently criticized NAFTA, the free trade agreement signed into law by President Clinton. The conservative Heritage Foundation says that NAFTA-like free trade benefits the economies of the United States, Canada and Mexico, resulting in increased trade, higher U.S. exports and improved living standards for American workers. Explain how President Clinton and the Heritage Foundation got it wrong then, but that you are right now.

10. Sen. Obama, this question is about global warming, something about which you urge extreme action to fight. You criticize President Bush for going to war in Iraq, even though all 16 intelligence agencies felt with "high confidence" that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMDs. Critics of Bush say he "cherry-picked" the intelligence. Hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists consider concerns about global warming overblown. Isn't there far more dissent among credible scientists about global warning than there was among American intelligence analysts about Iraq? If so, as to the studies on global warming, why can't you be accused of cherry-picking?

There is a severe misconception when it comes to discussing the World Trade Organization. Very briefly I will try to clear some things about what the WTO does...

The WTO negotiates trade agreements on the global level between governments for trade standards, it succeeded the General Agreement on Trades and Tarrifs (GATT).

Trade is one of the most important factors of economic development, if one country is good at producing one specific item it would trade with another nation that is good at producing something else, both parties benefit in a fruitful trade environment. This is important because trade creates what is called comparative advantages, e.g. Germany is good at producing beer, Russia is good at producing vodka, the both trade to gain benefits. Basically some countries are better at producing goods A and others at goods B, both trade and both expand and benefit as such.

Before the great depression and both World Wars, trade between nations was fairly open, nations would freely allow the movement of goods from one point to another. However post these economic shocks protectionism entered, countries started to close borders and introducing tariffs, import restrictions, quotas and variable import restrictions. This is problematic, some countries would not say have the infrastructure for heavy industry so cannot efficiently produce cars, other countries don't have the labor for cost efficient agricultural development. So there is a economic opportunity cost when investment takes place in industries that the benefit has no basis or advantage in, for example in my country they opened a computer factory during soviet times even though we were so far behind in development and software. There is a waste of scare economic resources then.

With GATT and WTO afterwards it, many of the trade restrictions have fallen the world over, leading to the cases we see of economic development in areas like South East Asia (China, India and the Asian Tiger economies).

However there are problems.

- Both WTO and IMF represent private corporate interests, siding with larger economies over smaller ones, so private interests in Western Nations can dictate the terms to smaller ones.

- Larger players possess the legalese and knowledge to push charges against smaller players, e.g. in the form of dumping charges (country A is dumping goods at below cost of production to penetrate the market to country B). For example the South East Asian economies are commonly accused of dumping their goods to the western world, when in fact its simply comparative advantages such as larger labor poll and such.

- Since trade barriers were existent already, large areas were already protected via political interests, the biggest being agriculture between 1st world and the 3rd world or smaller ones like timber trade between US and Canada.

An organization like the WTO is needed in that its a common form for discussing trade on a global scale, but it does not represent the interests of all fairly or provide a platform for such, one glance of their website will show you how many nations the US accuses of unfair trade advantages because its protections local interests.

However this is illogical, no nation can possess all production assets, due to scarcity, and the global economy is tightening year on year and becoming interdependent, which is a good thing, its very hard to bomb someone if your and theirs economies are connected through trade, this is happening between the US and China.

Its also presentative of the different rearrangement of economies over the long term, take the case of the UK a country that has went from primary industry, secondary and now is almost purely a services economy. China is now the worlds producer of simple secondary goods, the US is now a bigger R&D developer. The third world if it was allowed could feed the whole world and so on and so forth.

The economies are now interdependent as well, take your average laptop, the technology was probably developed in the US and Japan, the semiconductors were made in Malaysia and South Korea, and it was all put together in China.

Its not a perfect system by a long shot, however looking over the ages, economics is far better at leveling the playing field and brining together nations then idealistic statements and or anarchy which is common seen at WTO/IMF/G8 meets.

Of course there is a million other issues to consider... but I said this was a *cough* very brief description.

@moonsammy:
Ron Paul has said he is not going to just abolish it, you can't do that because of those who are currently dependent on it. But he does want to phase it out. There is a lot of misunderstanding about Social Security. A lot is from an ignorant optimism in our current economic situation, and also from the well-intentioned but flawed socialist ideologies you espouse. Right away, I can see you failed to catch the point about what causes mass poverty in the first place. Your concern is wholly placed in addressing the problem, assuming, erroneously, that poverty is the product of greedy rich people who will stop at nothing to collude and hoard all the wealth in the world, and not the result of government intervention in the free market through the federal reserve's inflationary control over the money supply, high taxes to fund do-good big government agencies and programs like SS, and government intervention via managed trade agreements and acts like Sarbanes Oxley.

Most wealthy people spend or invest their money, either through employing people, philanthropy, or consumption. A yacht or a car are both products produced by workers either in this country or another. It is more likely to be from this country if inflation, taxes, and government regulations are low, because then there will be no incentive for the producer or consumer to go overseas. Much of the time rich people spend their wealth on employing people for their business, buying products themselves, and it generally fuels the production means of the consumption ends. So in the free market system, the money is transferred naturally through production and consumption, which is good for everybody. In the socialist system, someone who has worked hard to earn wealth is getting their wealth stolen from them by the federal government to be redistributed to someone poorer which you claim is more fair. Money that would have ultimately gone towards someone else's income/productive effort is simply taken and transferred. On the most extreme hypothetical scale, everyone's wealth is redistributed to equality, removing most incentive to work harder and get more than the person next to you. So greed and wanting more fuels production and consumption, which inadvertently has the effect of helping everyone far more than stealing and redistributing would have. Social security and the income tax are both in the same destructive boat, because they are taxes on production, not on consumption. That isn't to say the free market is capable of eliminating poverty completely, or addressing the needs of a small percentage which is incapable of working. But in that scenario, you have voluntary stuff easily footing the bill through local churches and non-profit organizations.

That's really the whole point of social security - it isn't to benefit the lazy and the worthless that are such a plague upon us upstanding citizens, but to preserve some degree of dignity and humanity amongst our fellow countrymen who have, totally or at least largely through no fault of their own (none of us are perfect), become unable to adequately maintain themselves.

This shows me how little you actually researched before responding. Social Security is payed and received by everyone. It's a "retirement" program. Even Donald Trump can get an SS check when he retires. Don't pass this guilt trip garbage on people, this is what gets them trusting in the government in the first place.

In terms of your suggested alternative to the social security system: I'd love to see that be practicable. Unfortunately it is almost certainly too utopian to have a real chance.

Oh, you mean like all those years before it was implemented?

Until all corruption, greed, and prejudice is eliminated from our society there will *always* be people who are unfairly screwed over in life.

And politicians are incapable of these things, so we should entrust them to legislate the market in our best interest? We should trust them to spend money more wisely than the people who worked for it? That's stupid, that's exactly how we got in this position. Big business in bed with big government, legislating under the do-good pretense of taking care of people. Of course there are always going to be people getting screwed. But far more people get screwed with your system, making free market capitalism the better tradeoff. It's the same short-sighted argument from gun control advocates. Since gun violence exists, we should work to ban guns. Yet when these bans are implemented gun violence actually increases. The criminals get them on the black market and don't think twice against citizens they know are defenseless. Meanwhile, the gun-law advocates finally figure it out: guns actually prevented far more crime than they caused through coercion, and that didn't show up in the statistics. They took a knee-jerk reaction to media stories covering gun crimes in schools, and the immediate emotional outcry overpowered actual reason.

Here, you claim that SS isn't in trouble financially or a tax burden on the economy. Just do some research:

http://www.socialsecurity.org/quickfacts/

http://www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/faqs.html

i am still really 50/50 about globalisation.

all i can tell you is that freedom of travel in the EU is great, and that i think it would be much harder for any "dark forces" to control us if we mingle more.

my current guess is that the higher ups like globalisation because it makes trade easier and less of their profit goes on bureaucracy and crap.

also consider this example: i am in lithuania. i have a young musician friend in poland from the internet, he wanted to come to lithuania to play in one of my parties, but he couldn't because of problems with his passport and an alcoholic father. Now thanks to shengen he can come without a passport. i think that's good.

living in europe (not uk or usa) i have got much more confident about man's ability to retain his own culture while mixing with others. also i think the cultural gene pool NEEDS mixing.

i am more worried about google world domination than anything else.

just interested what you think on that.

:

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yes, it's a scary time, because the Executive Branch is acting outside the powers given to them by the Constitution. The President cannot make treaties with other countries without the Senate's approval. Currently, these deals between the US, Canada and Mexico are being passed off as trade agreements, not treaties. But a dissolution of our borders is not a trade agreement.

Welcome to the sift, by the way.

In reply to this comment by Jordass:
Wasnt endorsing Globalization just wanted to know more. Thanks for all the information, it was very informative and more people should familiarize themseleves with the organizations you metioned

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, the reason for the US Dollar losing it's value is a separate issue, altogether, and we don't need a North American Union to increase its value. That aside, this debate really comes down to whether you'd prefer to remain a sovereign nation or not. The borders between Canada, the US and Mexico will effectively disappear if there's a NAU, because the NAU goes much further than just currency and trade. The purpose of our Declaration of Independence was to claim our Union of States' independence. The NAU will render that document obsolete, and shortly thereafter the Constitution would be obsolete, because it cannot exist without our DoI. This isn't something to shrug at, because the changes won't come hard and fast, and most likely the general population would never notice their liberties and freedoms being taken away.

If you'd prefer the notion of a one world government (the true end to the globilization means), then you should be for the NAU, because that is step number two. Step number one was the EU, and next will be the Asian Union, then the African Union. Eventually, all of the "Unions" will probably become a one world union. And, if you still think all the nations that used to be sovereign would retain their "current governments" or "identities", as you put it, then I don't know what else I can say to you other than support globalization because, boy oh boy, does it sound nifty.

Take a little time to research the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). While you're at it, research the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and see how many of the current candidates are part of the CFR. If, after all of that, you still don't see how globalization is a bad idea for our sovereign nation, then, well support globalization. Support a one world government. A one world police force. Oh, what a happier utopia this world will be.

Yes, it's a scary time, because the Executive Branch is acting outside the powers given to them by the Constitution. The President cannot make treaties with other countries without the Senate's approval. Currently, these deals between the US, Canada and Mexico are being passed off as trade agreements, not treaties. But a dissolution of our borders is not a trade agreement.

Welcome to the sift, by the way.

In reply to this comment by Jordass:
Wasnt endorsing Globalization just wanted to know more. Thanks for all the information, it was very informative and more people should familiarize themseleves with the organizations you metioned

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, the reason for the US Dollar losing it's value is a separate issue, altogether, and we don't need a North American Union to increase its value. That aside, this debate really comes down to whether you'd prefer to remain a sovereign nation or not. The borders between Canada, the US and Mexico will effectively disappear if there's a NAU, because the NAU goes much further than just currency and trade. The purpose of our Declaration of Independence was to claim our Union of States' independence. The NAU will render that document obsolete, and shortly thereafter the Constitution would be obsolete, because it cannot exist without our DoI. This isn't something to shrug at, because the changes won't come hard and fast, and most likely the general population would never notice their liberties and freedoms being taken away.

If you'd prefer the notion of a one world government (the true end to the globilization means), then you should be for the NAU, because that is step number two. Step number one was the EU, and next will be the Asian Union, then the African Union. Eventually, all of the "Unions" will probably become a one world union. And, if you still think all the nations that used to be sovereign would retain their "current governments" or "identities", as you put it, then I don't know what else I can say to you other than support globalization because, boy oh boy, does it sound nifty.

Take a little time to research the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). While you're at it, research the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and see how many of the current candidates are part of the CFR. If, after all of that, you still don't see how globalization is a bad idea for our sovereign nation, then, well support globalization. Support a one world government. A one world police force. Oh, what a happier utopia this world will be.

Wasnt endorsing Globalization just wanted to know more. Thanks for all the information, it was very informative and more people should familiarize themseleves with the organizations you metioned

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, the reason for the US Dollar losing it's value is a separate issue, altogether, and we don't need a North American Union to increase its value. That aside, this debate really comes down to whether you'd prefer to remain a sovereign nation or not. The borders between Canada, the US and Mexico will effectively disappear if there's a NAU, because the NAU goes much further than just currency and trade. The purpose of our Declaration of Independence was to claim our Union of States' independence. The NAU will render that document obsolete, and shortly thereafter the Constitution would be obsolete, because it cannot exist without our DoI. This isn't something to shrug at, because the changes won't come hard and fast, and most likely the general population would never notice their liberties and freedoms being taken away.

If you'd prefer the notion of a one world government (the true end to the globilization means), then you should be for the NAU, because that is step number two. Step number one was the EU, and next will be the Asian Union, then the African Union. Eventually, all of the "Unions" will probably become a one world union. And, if you still think all the nations that used to be sovereign would retain their "current governments" or "identities", as you put it, then I don't know what else I can say to you other than support globalization because, boy oh boy, does it sound nifty.

Take a little time to research the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). While you're at it, research the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and see how many of the current candidates are part of the CFR. If, after all of that, you still don't see how globalization is a bad idea for our sovereign nation, then, well support globalization. Support a one world government. A one world police force. Oh, what a happier utopia this world will be.

Well, the reason for the US Dollar losing it's value is a separate issue, altogether, and we don't need a North American Union to increase its value. That aside, this debate really comes down to whether you'd prefer to remain a sovereign nation or not. The borders between Canada, the US and Mexico will effectively disappear if there's a NAU, because the NAU goes much further than just currency and trade. The purpose of our Declaration of Independence was to claim our Union of States' independence. The NAU will render that document obsolete, and shortly thereafter the Constitution would be obsolete, because it cannot exist without our DoI. This isn't something to shrug at, because the changes won't come hard and fast, and most likely the general population would never notice their liberties and freedoms being taken away.

If you'd prefer the notion of a one world government (the true end to the globilization means), then you should be for the NAU, because that is step number two. Step number one was the EU, and next will be the Asian Union, then the African Union. Eventually, all of the "Unions" will probably become a one world union. And, if you still think all the nations that used to be sovereign would retain their "current governments" or "identities", as you put it, then I don't know what else I can say to you other than support globalization because, boy oh boy, does it sound nifty.

Take a little time to research the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). While you're at it, research the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and see how many of the current candidates are part of the CFR. If, after all of that, you still don't see how globalization is a bad idea for our sovereign nation, then, well support globalization. Support a one world government. A one world police force. Oh, what a happier utopia this world will be.

For those that would like more insight to the myth of the liberal media, I present several books on the subject. there are of course books that look at it from the opposite angle (that the media really is liberal). I'll post about those books when the video comes up on VS.

Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media
by David Edwards (Author), David Cromwell (Author), John Pilger (Foreword)

________________________________________________

The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader
by Edward S. Herman (Author)

Book Description
The Myth of the Liberal Media contends that the mainstream media are parts of a market system and that their performance is shaped primarily by proprietor/owner and advertiser interests. Using a propaganda model, it is argued that the commercial media protect and propagandize for the corporate system. Case studies of major media institutions?the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer?are supplemented by detailed analyses of "word tricks and propaganda" and the media's treatment of topics such as Third World elections, the Persian Gulf War, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the fall of Suharto, and corporate junk science.
"Edward Herman's invaluable studies of the media in market-oriented democracies find their natural place in the broader sweep of contemporary history. Herman quotes James Madison's observation in later life that 'a popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy, or perhaps both.' The observation is apt; formal guarantees of personal freedom do not suffice to prevent the farce or the tragedy, even if the guarantees are observed. These issues, explored and illuminated in (these) essays . . ., should be at the center of the concerns of those who seek to create a society that is more free and more just." From the Preface by Noam Chomsky

__________________________________________

What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News (Paperback)
by Eric Alterman (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads. Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true. Much of Alterman's argument comes down to this: the conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist, says Alterman. In methodically shooting down conservative charges, Alterman employs extensive endnotes, all of which are referenced with superscript numbers throughout the body of the book. Those little numbers seem to say, "Look, I've done my homework." What Liberal Media? is a book very much of 2003 and will likely lose some relevance as political powers and media arrangements evolve. But it's likely to be a tonic for anyone who has suspected that in a media environment overflowing with conservatives, the charges of bias are hard to swallow. For liberals hoping someone will take off the gloves and mix it up with the verbal brawlers of the right, Eric Alterman is a champion.