If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
The published party tax platform does not include analysis or conjecture. As I already pointed out the published Republican party tax platform is consistent with Donald Trump's statements and does not coincide with what Gordon Ritchie originally claimed in this thread.
Gordon Ritchie claimed "Trump's fiscal plan will lower taxes on wealthy individuals, raise them on the middle class, and balloon the deficit."
Which is what the article states.
Is your agrument along the lines of:
Trump: I plan to drop a nuke on China because I think it's best for our country.
Analyst: But that will piss off the Chinese a lot.
Ritchie: Trump's plan will piss off the Chinese.
Belzberg: Trump never said he was going to piss of the Chinese. That's merely analysis or conjecture and Trump's plan is clearly lacking analysis or conjecture.
Gordon Ritchie claimed "Trump's fiscal plan will lower taxes on wealthy individuals, raise them on the middle class, and balloon the deficit."
Which is what the article states.
Is your agrument along the lines of:
Trump: I plan to drop a nuke on China because I think it's best for our country.
Analyst: But that will piss off the Chinese a lot.
Ritchie: Trump's plan will piss off the Chinese.
Belzberg: Trump never said he was going to piss of the Chinese. That's merely analysis or conjecture and Trump's plan is clearly lacking analysis or conjecture.
Sheesh.
Steve
The article gives an analysis based on conjecture. The republican tax platform itself does not explicitly state that nor does Trump.
I am a not sold on the Trickle down economics of cutting taxes on the rich
I am not either, I am a fan of cutting down corporate taxes for all the reasons I have previously stated. The economic miracle of Singapore was so successful that
China used it as a model of their own drive towards private enterprise. Other examples of where these policies have allowed an economy to flourish is Ireland.
Originally posted by Brian Profit
Would it not be better to get other people up and off the ground in terms of owning and running businesses?
Yes, absolutely, small businesses are America's biggest employer so lower corporate taxes and of equal importance lower regulation is vital.
Originally posted by Brian Profit
Secondly, I have read many times you are not a fan of Putin. How do you square that with Trump
I don't, I consider Putin one of the worst threats to the entire planet. I do not agree with Trump's position that he can work with Russians. This has already been tried with the current and previous administrations and failed. I do believe that he would very quickly change his mind on this issue. He does not agree with a policy of the government showing it's cards so I view his position on Putin is either one of ignorance or a poker bluff of sorts.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 21st October, 2016, 03:55 PM.
I am not either, I am a fan of cutting down corporate taxes for all the reasons I have previously stated. The economic miracle of Singapore was so successful that
China used it as a model of their own drive towards private enterprise. Other examples of where these policies have allowed an economy to flourish is Ireland.
Yes, absolutely, small businesses are America's biggest employer so lower corporate taxes and of equal importance lower regulation is vital.
I don't, I consider Putin one of the worst threats to the entire planet. I do not agree with Trump's position that he can work with Russians. This has already been tried with the current and previous administrations and failed. I do believe that he would very quickly change his mind on this issue. He does not agree with a policy of the government showing it's cards so I view his position on Putin is either one of ignorance or a poker bluff of sorts.
Sid, in an earlier post in this thread, you used Russia as an example of a failed socialist state... "Socialistic policies were tried for over 70 years in Russia, in case you did not notice, it failed!"
Why did you use Russia as your example when you know very well Russia is a nation ruled by thugs and criminals?
For an example of a socialist nation that works, try Sweden. For decades Sweden has been chosen as the best country in the world in which to live, using many quality of life metrics. Definitely a socialist country, and one that works so much better than America, which in those same polls falls way down in the rankings, not even making the top 25 if memory serves.
The problem with wanting only corporate tax breaks is that corporations have only their own best interests in mind. If that means polluting the environment, so be it. The China growth rates are coming at a terrible price. The smog in their major cities gets so bad, and has such high concentrations of toxic chemicals, people literally are dropping dead in the streets.
Corporations, especially the richest ones, need to be brought into the world of responsibility. If we individual citizens must obey rules of law that ensure things like equal rights, equal opportunity, do no harm to society etc, then corporations headquartered in America need to do the same. And in that respect, I hope Hillary enacts legislation that FORCES corporations to bring those earnings back to America and pay their share of taxes on them. Just in recent years, Swiss banks were threatened by the US government with lawsuits if they didn't make public the names of their account holders who were evading taxes in their home country. And the banks are complying, and tax cheats are being caught. So the mood is right for doing the same thing with corporations.
And by the way, if corporations invest their earnings in small businesses as you talk about, don't they get tax breaks on those investments? So bring the earnings home, pay taxes on them, then use them to invest in small businesses and get tax breaks to offset the taxes you paid. But no, corporations are too greedy for that, they want it ALL!
Very revealing that you talk about China. The majority of Americans do NOT want America to become China! China is one of the worst offenders of both human rights and environmental laws in the world.
Sid, you should be paying attention to the Bernie Sanders phenomenon. Why do you think Sanders got so many of the young voters behind him? It certainly isn't because he's sexy, in fact, he's the antithesis of sexy. It's because young voters are aware of WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. And for them, it is saving the environment and creating a more just society with a far stronger middle class and opportunity for the poor to reach the middle class. It is NOT about letting corporate greed run rampant.
As a prime example of corporate lack of interest in the very society in which they exist.... in early 2009 it had to be the Obama government that bailed out the U.S. auto industry. Corporate America was just sitting on their hands, watching as the very foundation of their existence was disintegrating before their eyes. The collapse of the auto industry, if it had happened, would have destroyed America from within. Just as one example, all the network broadcasters throughout America were getting prepared to lay off all their news staff, because all the auto dealers would be shutting down, and local news is almost totally subsidized by local auto dealers. The chain reaction was going to be totally destructive. The world of Mad Max was never closer to becoming reality.
Were any American corporations bringing home their earnings to invest in America then? To invest in GM and Chrysler?
No sir! No corporation saved America. The government saved America.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
For an example of a socialist nation that works, try Sweden.
The State does not work. I have relatives that "tried" Sweden when they went their as refugees to escape Polish persecution of Jews in 1969. It has been failing as a state for the last twenty years as Islamic groups have caused so much antisemitism that they fear for their own safety when they go out. They are not alone in this experience. You talk from a position of ignorance with only superficial knowledge of rhetoric that you parrot. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5...n-failed-state
Sweden: From "Humanitarian Superpower" to Failed State
Sweden's "December Agreement" may be fairly described as a soft coup d'état; it has paved the way for Sweden's demise. Six of the eight political parties in parliament have simply decided to exclude from the parliamentary process the only party to oppose mass immigration and defend Swedish culture. The new system may also be described as a consensual dictatorship.
The price tag for immigration is possibly 110 billion Swedish kroner (close to $14 billion) per year. That is a lot of money in a country with 10 million inhabitants. The politicians, however, keep insisting that immigration from third-word countries is an economic boon. Nor is it discussed in the media. Anyone even daring to mention that there may be a problem is labeled a "racist," a "fascist," or a "xenophobe."
One may safely predict that Sweden's goose will be cooked well before the December Agreement runs out in 2022. Its days as a free and democratic welfare state will be over. A population of perhaps eight million Swedes cannot accommodate and pay for perhaps four million such immigrants in eight years. It is as if the U.S. were to accept 150 million.
As Europe braces itself for new terror attacks, its political establishments face a choice: Will they finally start listening to their citizens' growing concerns over Muslim mass immigration and the spread of political Islam, or will they dig in and try to perpetuate decades of failed multicultural policies?
Sweden, perhaps leading the way, seems to have chosen the latter. As part of the country's so-called December Agreement, six of the eight political parties represented in parliament (Riksdagen) have simply decided to exclude the Sweden Democrats [SD] -- the only party to oppose mass immigration and defend Swedish culture -- from the parliamentary process.
No new elections
Technically, the six parties (in addition to the ex-communists, who were not included in the agreement but will no doubt adhere to it, as they are close allies of the Social Democratic government) have agreed that the budget presented by whoever is prime minister will not be voted down by the opposition. That was what happened in early December 2014, when Social Democratic Prime Minister Stefan Löfven's budget proposal failed because the Sweden Democrats voted with the center-right opposition. Consequently, Stefan Löfven's minority government found itself in the intolerable position of having to govern on the basis of the opposition's budget.
PM Löfven decided to call for new elections, to be held on March 22, 2015. But unfortunately for both the government and the opposition, several opinion polls left no doubt that the Sweden Democrats were steaming ahead. Some polls put them at 18% (up from 12% in the last election), meaning that neither the ex-communist-green-socialist governing block nor the center-right opposition could command a majority in a new parliament.
So the six parties got together in a common front against Sweden's only real opposition party, the Sweden Democrats. On December 27, they announced that there would be no new elections. Thus, the one million plus Swedes who had intended to vote for the SD, would have to wait for another four years, and even then their votes will not matter because the December Agreement runs until 2022.
Until the unlikely event that the Sweden Democrats obtain 51% of the vote, their supporters might as well howl at the moon. No other party will negotiate with their representatives or listen to their arguments.
Politics from the back room
The December Agreement may be fairly described as a soft coup d'état that has paved the way for Sweden's demise.
On the surface, Sweden's democratic institutions are intact, but from now on they are a hollow shell. The December Agreement introduces what may be labeled a dual parliamentary system. The official parliament, Riksdagen, remains in place, but in the shadows lurks the real parliament, made up of the seven party leaders -- all the way from the ex-communists (Vänsterpartiet) to the conservatives (Moderaterna). This back-room assembly conducts its deliberations in secret and protected from public scrutiny. From time to time, it will present its decisions to the Riksdag. As the seven parties make up 300 of the 349 members, the Riksdag will, of course, give its assent.
The new system may also be described as a consensual dictatorship. Regardless of what government Sweden will have over the next eight years, it will in reality have dictatorial powers. Its yearly budgets, which are the foundations of any other policies, are guaranteed to pass. In addition to the budget, the unified parties have announced that they will seek unanimity on defense, security, pensions and energy.
"Orderly" and "responsible" government
According to the six party leaders, the December Agreement was necessitated by Sweden's need for "orderly" and "responsible" government. Only the leader of the centrist People's Party (Folkpartiet), Jan Björklund, revealed the true intent: To keep "resentment parties" (read: the Sweden Democrats) away from influence.
None of the journalists present at the press conference, where PM Löfven revealed the new political order, asked the obvious question: Is it not the obligation of the political opposition to oppose -- indeed be resentful of -- the government's policies? Otherwise, what is the opposition for? And why have democratic elections if all "responsible" parties are expected to agree?
Unfortunately such questions were not asked, and by and large -- with a few dissenting voices -- the Swedish mainstream media have applauded the December Agreement.
At the December 27 press conference, hardly a word was said about the overweight elephant that is stalking Sweden: Immigration from the Middle East and Africa, which is so massive and costly that it is bound to thwart any budget.
14 billion dollars
No official statistics on the costs of immigration are available. But according to professor of ethnology Karl-Olov Arnstberg and journalist Gunnar Sandelin (authors of the noted book, Invandring och mörkläggning – Immigration and Concealment), the price tag is 110 billion Swedish kroner (close to $14 billion) per year.
That is a lot of money in a country with 10 million inhabitants. Others have put the net figure much higher. The politicians, however, keep insisting that immigration from third-world countries is an indubitable economic boon and refuse to discuss the issue. Nor is it discussed in the mainstream media. Anyone even daring to mention that there may be a problem is routinely labeled a "racist," a "fascist" or a "xenophobe."
Sweden's official statistical office, SCB, documents that a massive demographic shift is under way. Over the period 2000-2013, inhabitants with a foreign background grew by 713,000, whereas the number of inhabitants with a Swedish background increased by only 50,000.
Sweden has the highest number of asylum seekers per million inhabitants in Europe. According to the latest prognosis for 2014, 95,000 will have sought asylum in Sweden. The vast majority will be granted permanent residence.
Participants in Sweden's Asylstafetten (Asylum Relay) 2013 marched for 34 days from Malmö to Stockholm, to demand their government enact a "humane refugee policy," with more support and protection for refugees.
Exit Sweden
With vast parts of the Middle East and North Africa in turmoil, there is every indication that the number of asylum seekers will increase in the coming years. And as there is no sign that Sweden's seven united parties will dismantle their open door policy, one may safely predict that Sweden's goose will be cooked well before the December Agreement runs out in 2022. Sadly, its days as a free and democratic welfare state will be over. A population of perhaps eight million Swedes cannot accommodate and pay for perhaps four million such immigrants in eight years. It is as if the United States were to accept 150 million immigrants.
If we estimate that 80,000 asylum seekers will be granted permanent residence every year for the next eight years, we reach a figure of 640,000. As it is generally estimated that every new permanent resident from third-world countries will be followed by 2-3 family members or dependents, we are probably talking about an influx of two and a quarter million by 2022.
By that time, Sweden, which prides itself on being a "humanitarian superpower," will have become a failed state and there is nothing the discontented can do about it except leave the country. This was precisely what the UN predicted, but subsequently, it withdrew this prognosis.
Many have wondered what motivates the political establishment. Why do they insist on filling the country with foreigners, most of whom will become dependent on the state because they do not have skills required for jobs in the modern economy?
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 21st October, 2016, 06:14 PM.
The net debt/GDP is negative, i.e. the Public sector has net assets of about 20% of GDP, unlike Canada, which has a net Public debt about 40% of GDP.
The Swedes have very few regulations throttling enterprise.
Corruption / wastage is low, crony capitalism is low.
Value Added Tax is 25% (food, books being exceptions). Taxation is less of an income redistributor, but more of an efficiency enhancer...
The vast majority of Swedes consider Religion to be a 'cultural club'.
Thus it is a tight knit 'fair' community, where both enterprise and 'labor' are fairly rewarded.
Huh.... you veered the conversation from corporate taxation and quality of life to number of refugees and persecution of Jews. Well, I guess you had to find SOMETHING wrong with Sweden.
Hey, Sid, I'm very aware that heaven doesn't exist on Earth. No nation is without problems. But we can just throw out everything you just posted and get back to quality of life. And for years running, actually decades running, the Nordic countries -- Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, and even Iceland -- have all been at or near the top of polls taken of citizens of each country about their own quality of life. Germany and Switzerland are also high on these lists, and Canada, New Zealand and Australia as well. The U.S., for all its vaunted wealth, always falls below most if not all of these countries.
And the one thing we can say about all these countries with relation to the U.S. is that they have higher degree of government involvement in their economies, and for most (if not all) of them, higher governent involvement in their education and health care.
So Sweden is getting a higher % of refugees than other countries. Perhaps this is because Sweden also comes on top of the poll of the "World's Goodest Countries", as you can find out here:
If you scroll right, the last 2 categories are "Prosperity & Equality" along with "Health & Wellbeing". Sweden finished 1st IN BOTH CATEGORIES. The United States, 20th place overall, finished 46th and 12th in those last 2 categories.
Sweden even outdoes the United States in the "Science & Technology" category: 8th place for Sweden, 20th for USA.
This is not the same type of poll as I was originally referring to. In fact, I don't think it's a poll, but rather a result of many statistics gathered via the U.N. and other sources having to do with what each country is contributing to the world at large in the various categories.
I'll ignore your name-calling -- have to expect that from a Trump supporter.
I notice you didn't respond at all to my other points.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Huh.... you veered the conversation from corporate taxation and quality of life to number of refugees and persecution of Jews. Well, I guess you had to find SOMETHING wrong with Sweden.
Hey, Sid, I'm very aware that heaven doesn't exist on Earth. No nation is without problems. But we can just throw out everything you just posted and get back to quality of life. And for years running, actually decades running, the Nordic countries -- Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, and even Iceland -- have all been at or near the top of polls taken of citizens of each country about their own quality of life. Germany and Switzerland are also high on these lists, and Canada, New Zealand and Australia as well. The U.S., for all its vaunted wealth, always falls below most if not all of these countries.
And the one thing we can say about all these countries with relation to the U.S. is that they have higher degree of government involvement in their economies, and for most (if not all) of them, higher governent involvement in their education and health care.
So Sweden is getting a higher % of refugees than other countries. Perhaps this is because Sweden also comes on top of the poll of the "World's Goodest Countries", as you can find out here:
If you scroll right, the last 2 categories are "Prosperity & Equality" along with "Health & Wellbeing". Sweden finished 1st IN BOTH CATEGORIES. The United States, 20th place overall, finished 46th and 12th in those last 2 categories.
Sweden even outdoes the United States in the "Science & Technology" category: 8th place for Sweden, 20th for USA.
This is not the same type of poll as I was originally referring to. In fact, I don't think it's a poll, but rather a result of many statistics gathered via the U.N. and other sources having to do with what each country is contributing to the world at large in the various categories.
I'll ignore your name-calling -- have to expect that from a Trump supporter.
I notice you didn't respond at all to my other points.
The fact is that Sweden is not a socialist state as was already correctly pointed out. In fact even parts of the education system are run by for profit organizations , no doubt Bern Supporters would recoil in horror from such a notion. Most of the means of production in Sweden are owned by private individuals, not by government. So your hated private corporations have served Sweden well. As pointed out in my previous post what the Govt has become involved in is a sad tragedy for the country. I stand by statement that you post from a position of ignorance.I am not a Trump supporter and find him repugnant, i just happen to have a lower opinion of his opponent and her ideas.
Sweden’s unethical – and unlawful **– arms deals with ‘ISIS-backing’ Saudis
By Prof Marcello Ferrada de Noli,
By the Way The Clinton Foundation that is a front for funneling money to the Clintons has accepted !0 of Millions of dollars from Saudia Arabia, a country that executes gays and denies women basic rights.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Saturday, 22nd October, 2016, 09:34 AM.
The fact is that Sweden is not a socialist state as was already correctly pointed out. In fact even parts of the education system are run by for profit organizations , no doubt Bern Supporters would recoil in horror from such a notion. Most of the means of production in Sweden are owned by private individuals, not by government. So your hated private corporations have served Sweden well. As pointed out in my previous post what the Govt has become involved in is a sad tragedy for the country. I stand by statement that you post from a position of ignorance.I am not a Trump supporter and find him repugnant, i just happen to have a lower opinion of his opponent and her ideas.
Sweden’s unethical – and unlawful **– arms deals with ‘ISIS-backing’ Saudis
By Prof Marcello Ferrada de Noli,
By the Way The Clinton Foundation that is a front for funneling money to the Clintons has accepted !0 of Millions of dollars from Saudia Arabia, a country that executes gays and denies women basic rights.
Not once have I ever said I hate private corporations or that I think they should be owned by / operated by the government. Nor did Bernie Sanders. So I'm going to stuff that nonsense right back up your a-hole where it came from.
You are the one posting from ignorance because you fail to understand that there are DEGREES of socialism and of capitalism. By technical definition, Sweden is not socialist, but by comparison to the U.S., it is (in the minds of most Americans). So is Canada, for that matter.
Sweden is far more socialist than the U.S. because of its cradle-to-grave benefits of health care, education, and unemployment insurance. If you want to argue that Sweden isn't PURE socialist, I could equally point out that the U.S. isn't PURE capitalist. Ask a Libertarian in the U.S. if they are happy with the size and role of the U.S. government.
If you can distort the meaning of socialism by using Russia as an example, I can distort it in the other direction and use Sweden as an example. In this year's election campaign, Bernie Sanders was always using as his model the Nordic countries and the way they take care of their citizens via government, i.e. via taxation, and even the somewhat puritannical Bill O'Reilly described Sanders' views as socialism. So if you want to argue it, take it up with him!
All of the stuff you've posted about Sweden has to do with the effects of immigration, specifically of refugees from the Middle East, most of whom are Muslim. These events are beyond the bounds of a discussion of socialism versus capitalism. If the United States were located in Europe, we too would be seeing this phenomenon of refugees lining up at our borders by the tens of millions, and we too would have to make decision about whether to accept them. To a much, much greater extent than we are dealing with it where we are, separated from them by the Atlantic Ocean. You've made your views clear about that topic, Sid, so we know where your heart is.
And that helps us to understand your views, and the views of Donald Trump, on corporate taxes. "So what if there is a societal polarization going on in the U.S., where increasing amounts of corporate profits are being stashed in the Cayman Islands while simultaneously increasing numbers of poor and even middle class are having to go on food stamps? So what! Who cares about the student debt crisis? Let 'em become homeless! I'm not bringing my corporate profits home until I dont have to pay taxes on them! I'm Donald Trump and I'll do whatever it takes to not pay taxes, to NOT PAY for the benefits of living in the USA, to NOT PAY for the military, to NOT PAY for health care of my workers.... and while I'm not paying, I'm going to complain about the size of the U.S. debt!"
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
"So what if there is a societal polarization going on in the U.S., where increasing amounts of corporate profits are being stashed in the Cayman Islands while simultaneously increasing numbers of poor and even middle class are having to go on food stamps?
Exactly the problem outlined countless times by the Republican team. They want the trillions of dollar's kept outside of this country repatriated back to the US and put to work creating jobs. high corporate taxes is what encouraged this in the first place.
Originally posted by Paul Bonham
By technical definition, Sweden is not socialist
You are the one that used it as a shining example of socialism and complained that Russia was ruled by thugs (come to think of it it still is) therefore a bad example. Well I have news for you the Swedish government that is involved arming ISIS supporting Saudis are just as bad.
Originally posted by Paul Bonham
Were any American corporations bringing home their earnings to invest in America then? To invest in GM and Chrysler?
No sir! No corporation saved America. The government saved America.
That is the one statement I agree with. It turned out that the goverment's bail out turned out to be one of their most profitable investments not just the auto industry, but Wall street firms and even AIG. Not a bad deal for the taxpayer. Like it or not the government still had to rely on the corporations to make sure there investment was profitable because the fact of the matter is that America is built on a capitalist system that works.
However, When you get criminals at the top of powerful firms or governments then things will go very wrong. I personally think people like Richard S Fuld ex CEO Lehman who spent over a year publishing works of fiction for financials and later a govt team of lawyers recommend he should be prosecuted but never was by the Obama controlled DOJ should be in jail. The financial crisis on Wall Street quickly had effects on the auto industry that relied on customers that could get financing.
Now that Clinton campaign team has been exposed for planning massive voter fraud in battleground states, violently disrupting campaigns, controlling the media, campaign team managers suspected of wikileaks involvement ending up dead under mysterious circumstances, Clinton herself openly asking if they can "drone" Julian Assange then i see this as the true threat to democracy as we know it.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Saturday, 22nd October, 2016, 05:47 PM.
The so called bail-out of the auto industry was anything but...it was an elegant libertarian solution: the original owners (shareholders) had done a poor job of oversight, and so the government first had the companies declare bankruptcy, with the stockholders losing lots of money as they should have, and then along with a few others, I believe, became the new owners, got rid of all the corporate jets, changed the management and forced the Unions to accept a hefty pay cut from their unrealistic levels... besides the company workers eventually benefiting by not having lost their jobs, and the US economy in general avoiding a disaster, the government has ended up making a lot of money too...
It all worked very well despite the government getting involved because everyone's backs were to the wall, and all eyes were on how each stakeholder was performing...
The moral? Well, unless the owners provide oversight, and not just gamble on the stock market, they lose money...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 22nd October, 2016, 08:37 PM.
Tweet
Comment