Forum archives » Fights Go Here » Peace?

DragonXero
March 25, 2003 11:48 AM

For everyone who thinks this war should end NOW, check out this site: Peace in Iraq Now!

Post #86680link

evil_d
March 25, 2003 12:05 PM

Lo, the return of the fearsome black dragon Xero had been foretold by the Prophet in days of yore. "The heavens shall open," said he, "and from them shall pour a torrent, nay, a monsoon of senseless posts, and they will fill up every forum to the limit. The great dragon shall stretch his iron-clad wings across the sky, and laugh mightily at the suffering. And this storm shall last for four and twenty hours, and many shall drown. Then, as suddenly as he arrived, the dragon shall fly off. Yet know that surely, as always, he shall one day return."

Public service announcement: don't click the link. It just opens a bunch of annoying pop-up windows.

Post #86681link

naz_ghul
March 25, 2003 1:37 PM

If only he were brave enough to face Trogdor. However, we know that Trogdor would simply burninate his ass along with the peasants and thatched roof cottages.

Post #86687link

DragonXero
March 26, 2003 11:31 AM

Trogdor? Trogdor.. where have I heard that name before? Trogdor.. trogd- NOW I REMEMBER! Troggie the Groggy! He was in my rookery. Ah yes, Trogdor. Everyone teased him.

Oh, and Evil_D, I didn't think this post was any more senseless than all the "stop the war!" posts. But then, I guess some people think protesting is going to do more than block traffic and make a few people's days more difficult than they would have been.

Hey, it's your right to speak out as you wish, but it does little good. You wanna stop the killing, go jump in front of a Iraqi soldier to keep him from harm.

Or you could just stand there, they'll pull you in front of them anyway.

Post #86748link

fuzzyman
March 26, 2003 4:20 PM

I think protests make sense, at least a historical context. It won't change President Moron's mind, but at least no one is going to look back 20 years from now and say, "Yep, the American People were right on board with that war and were really supportive of it."

I can't wait to vote this idiot back to Texas.

Post #86778link

KajunFirefly
March 26, 2003 5:55 PM

I agree with DX, sure, I would have taken part in the protests BEFORE it all started. But it's started now, people have died, it wont end until it's over, there's really no point in standing in the street annoying everyone in your own city.

I fail to see what it'd do historically either, telling people that I was so opposed to the war that I took a day off work and made an ass of myself in the street isn't anything compared to actually tooling up and dragging my intellectually superior ass over to the desert and actually doing something that mattered.

Post #86781link

andydougan
March 26, 2003 6:36 PM

quote:
I agree with DX, sure, I would have taken part in the protests BEFORE it all started. But it's started now, people have died, it wont end until it's over, there's really no point in standing in the street annoying everyone in your own city.

But it wouldn't've made any difference protesting before the war, either. So why bother even then?

Post #86784link

KajunFirefly
March 26, 2003 6:53 PM

Because it wasn't official, there was still the belief that standing in the streets and waving banners meant something, but now it's like running around screaming "HITLER IS EVIL!", protestors aren't saying anything that anyone with half a brain doesn't already know.

Post #86785link

fuzzyman
March 26, 2003 7:35 PM

The thing that kills me isn't that we're at war, it's how we went about it. In the long run, inspections probably wouldn't have worked, and Saddam would have to be forced out.. err... by force.

But the way the administration got into this... we look like warmongers who were hell-bent on attacking Iraq no matter what. Any measure of international good will and cooperation that we got for being attacked on 9/11 has been pissed away. Either Bush and his advisors are incredible blunderers, or they purposely failed at diplomacy in order to weaken the influence of the U.N. Conservatives have this fear of U.N. hegemony, and I wouldn't put a trick like that past them.

Post #86786link

Spankling
March 26, 2003 7:58 PM

And these chickenhawks can't even run a good one. They started the ground war too early and they are fucking up their supply chain. Didn't these numbnuts ever play Risk?

There is never a wrong time to speaking out for peace. It may look like you going to fail in stopping violence - and most often you will given history. But every once in a while non-violent protest has topple empire builders.

Post #86789link

Devin
March 26, 2003 10:24 PM

I'm surprised no one bothered to mention how the protests were carried out in the same bull-headed, my-way-or-the-highway kind of method that Dubya used to carry out his own plans.

Not to say that I agree with the method. You guys merely watched people get held up in traffic-- I had to live it!

Post #86801link

PhreakyChinchilla
March 27, 2003 5:49 AM

quote:
I think protests make sense, at least a historical context. It won't change President Moron's mind, but at least no one is going to look back 20 years from now and say, "Yep, the American People were right on board with that war and were really supportive of it."

I can't wait to vote this idiot back to Texas.


My guess is that he won't even get the Republican bid in the next election. He truly is a moron.

Post #86815link

not_Scyess
March 27, 2003 9:36 AM

quote:
But the way the administration got into this... we look like warmongers who were hell-bent on attacking Iraq no matter what. Any measure of international good will and cooperation that we got for being attacked on 9/11 has been pissed away. Either Bush and his advisors are incredible blunderers, or they purposely failed at diplomacy in order to weaken the influence of the U.N. Conservatives have this fear of U.N. hegemony, and I wouldn't put a trick like that past them.

Personally, I can see the case for war and the case against it. I'm glad I wasn't the one who had to make the decisions.

What I can also see, however, is how the GWB compeletely fucked up in explaining the reasons for war. Liberating Iraq? What about all the people oppressed by various African dictatorships? Supporting UN mandates? What's the point if you have to go against the UN to do it? Anti-terrorism? What evidence has anyone been given -- besides Saddam's cheering the WTC attacks -- that any terrorism is going on inside Iraq?

When I said I can see both sides, obviously, I had to work pretty hard to see past the "official" reasons to find any legitimate ones for the attack.

Not to mention that all these completely separate reasons have nothing to do with each other; they sit together like a big pile of excuses. And calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom... Jesus. What fucking lame-ass public-pandering feel-good bullshit nomenclature THAT is.

quote:
My guess is that he won't even get the Republican bid in the next election. He truly is a moron.

HA! If you really think that than at least his moronicness has good company. ;> National opinion poles don't love the war but they're not down enough to boot him before the election. I think he might actually win it.

Post #86832link

Drexle
March 27, 2003 9:52 AM

quote:
HA! If you really think that than at least his moronicness has good company. ;> National opinion poles don't love the war but they're not down enough to boot him before the election. I think he might actually win it.


There seems to be this magical aura that makes people overlook republican fuck-ups when election time comes around. It would take not only a decisive loss in Iraq before people want him out in 2004, but a continuing series of blunders leading right up to the election.

While I'm certain that Bush wanted a quick and easy victory so that he could get some cheap poll approval, I think he wouldn't mind one bit if there were still a war (not necissarily this war) going on by the time elections roll around.

Post #86834link

fuzzyman
March 27, 2003 10:12 AM

Assuming we aren't at war, it will still depend on how the economy is doing. If the economy is still in the dumpers around, say, the July before the presidential election, watch for Bush to get into some sort of military conflict or fight with the U.N.. After 3 years, he won't be able to blame the economy on 9/11, and any "stimulus packages" would be shown to have been ineffective.

The other half is who the Democrats put up as a candidate. I want someone who speaks his mind, follows his concience, and doesn't try to be everything to everybody. That's why I like Howard Dean.

Post #86837link

not_Scyess
March 27, 2003 10:30 AM

quote:
Assuming we aren't at war, it will still depend on how the economy is doing.

...which is another thing that pisses me off, since the President has little control over the economy -- and what control he has he should only use in the most dire circumstances. Yet everyone and his dog things that if the economy's in a slump, it's the President's fault. Man, people are stupid.

What did George Bush to do hurt the economy? (That is, not counting the long-term harm his tax-cuts + big-spending will do after he's long retired.)
What did Bill Clinton ever do to help it?
What did Bush Sr. ever do to hurt it?
What did Reagan do to help it? (Okay, he spent fuckloads of government money on defense to help it -- but that didn't help it in long long run, did it? Man, people are stupid.)

quote:
I want someone who speaks his mind, follows his concience, and doesn't try to be everything to everybody.

...in other words, you want someone who can't possibly win.

Post #86841link

Devin
March 27, 2003 10:52 AM

quote:
What did George Bush to do hurt the economy?
Don't know what he did for the economy, but I know of something that he did for the ecology-- he removed a provision from the Clean Air Act that required SUVs and light trucks to meet fuel and emission standards by 2003.

See, there are PLENTY of reasons to hate Bush!

Post #86845link

Spankling
March 27, 2003 8:00 PM

Clinton spent less than he took in. Raygun, Bush and W spend more than they take in. The economy sucked with Raygun too. I know that formula works with my home economy.

And that will be what decides if he's prez next time - that and we'll see if there are any viable Dems alive by then.

Post #86872link

not_Scyess
March 28, 2003 6:55 AM

quote:
Clinton spent less than he took in. Raygun, Bush and W spend more than they take in. The economy sucked with Raygun too.

...the reason for this, of course, is that the economy was still under the tech bubble while Clinton was in office. People were spending and stocks were going up long past where it should have all stopped. More income equals more tax revenue. Now we're seeing the aftermath of the disproportionate spending under Bush. But it's nothing Bush or Clinton did.

Of course, Bush's short-sighted tax cuts -- which reduce taxes (good!) without reducing spending (bad!) -- will drive up the government deficit, but won't have any short-term effect on the economy.

If you recall, the economy started sliding before anything Bush could've done would've had any effect, anyway. Only he didn't do anything (to that effect).

But if you must vote Dem, vote Braun! Support the underdog!

Post #86912link

Zegota
March 28, 2003 9:26 AM

Whatever happened to Schwarzenegger for president?

Iraq would have disarmed years ago.

Post #86925link

not_Scyess
March 28, 2003 11:00 AM

He'll be back!

Post #86944link

israphael
March 28, 2003 12:19 PM

quote:
I can't wait to vote this idiot back to Texas.

Can't we vote him totally off the island. I don't want him in Texas. I live in Texas.

Post #86951link

israphael
March 28, 2003 12:28 PM

quote:
And these chickenhawks can't even run a good one. They started the ground war too early and they are fucking up their supply chain. Didn't these numbnuts ever play Risk?

If they had they would have learned one important lession. Whenever one nation (player) got too big, the others had a tendecy to gang up and take chunks out of the big nation.

In real life, if we act too big for our britches and fail to take into account the feelings and needs of the other nations in the world, it could easily become a very lonely and scary place.

Post #86953link

Devin
March 30, 2003 9:48 PM

quote:
If they had they would have learned one important lession. Whenever one nation (player) got too big, the others had a tendecy to gang up and take chunks out of the big nation.
I agree. Here I am, minding my own business, building my civilization, never warring with anyone, and then all of a sudden the dick-headed Egyptians threaten me for Motorized Transporation, I refuse, and they and the Iroquois both gang up on me!

So while I was at it, I barrelled through some of their cities and took over some coal that I had desperately needed, so I could start building railroads.

What were we talking about again?

Post #87081link

boorite
March 31, 2003 9:18 AM

quote:
What did George Bush to do hurt the economy?

Well let's see. For starters, he....

quote:
(That is, not counting the long-term harm his tax-cuts + big-spending will do after he's long retired.)


Oh, not counting that. This is sort of like trying to describe Dolly Parton's appearance without reference to breasts or hair, but hey.

To think up an example of how badly Bush is fucking up my mutual funds, I had to think all the way back to my drive to work this morning. The Marketplace Morning Report said foreign boycotts are hurting American brands. Something like 80% of leading global brands are owned by US corporations, and around half the sales of these brands are overseas. Bush's war is not popular in those weird, foreign places. Spain, for example, has had huge war protests, with upwards of a million people in the streets of Madrid-- and we count Spain as being on our side. Polls say something like 80% of Europeans are adamantly against the war. They see the US as arrogant and aggressive and violent and lawless. And so they're not inclined to buy Coke and Disney and all the other flag-draped shit we send them. "Fuck America" is their attitude, and why not?

Who's going to buy this shit then?

Post #87108link

not_Scyess
March 31, 2003 10:03 AM

quote:
quote:
(That is, not counting the long-term harm his tax-cuts + big-spending will do after he's long retired.)


Oh, not counting that. This is sort of like trying to describe Dolly Parton's appearance without reference to breasts or hair, but hey.

Well, that has an effect on the deficit, but it won't have any serious effects until long after the general public will hold him culpable. Economic effects, if any, will happen some time even after that.

quote:
To think up an example of how badly Bush is fucking up my mutual funds, I had to think all the way back to my drive to work this morning. The Marketplace Morning Report said foreign boycotts are hurting American brands. Something like 80% of leading global brands are owned by US corporations, and around half the sales of these brands are overseas.

Mutual funds are not "The economy." Although I see your point that war is one of the few things a president could do to actively affect the economy.

quote:
Who's going to buy this shit then?

Well, you see, once the initial indignation against the US for the war subsides, people are going to realize that they just like the products sold by Coke and (yuck) Disney, and they're going to break down and buy them again. Simply BECAUSE 80% of leading global brands are owned by US corporations, and half the sales of these are overseas, the world is going to have to do a lot to make any boycott felt in the long term.

On a related note, a person I know who is pissed off at France decided not to drink French wine anymore. That is until the resteraunt served him a glass of red from France, and it was good. So he ordered another.

What people say they're going to do and what they actually do are two different things.

Post #87118link

fishoutofbeer
April 1, 2003 9:00 AM

quote:
Well, (tax cut + big spending) has an effect on the deficit, but it won't have any serious effects until long after the general public will hold him culpable. Economic effects, if any, will happen some time even after that.

If only. The fact is, the prospect of growing deficits fucks up investor confidence now. That's one reason why cutting taxes on the theory that people will invest the money they save is a dumb idea. Another reason is that there's a deeper source of low investor confidence-- excess production capacity. Giving people more money to buy stocks doesn't make them buy stocks if they don't think the stocks are going to make money.

quote:
Mutual funds are not "The economy."

Of course mutual funds and the stock market are not "the economy." But fucking up the stock market hurts the economy. And you asked what Bush did to hurt the economy. So there's part of your answer.

Please realize that Americans have over $7 trillion in assets under management in mutual funds. That's a fifty-fold increase in just over 20 years, most of it accounted for not by the very wealthy but by ordinary workers saving for retirement. Traditional pensions have largely given way to 401(k) and 403(b) plans, and Social Security is a joke. So what do you suppose happens when millions and millions of Americans (myself included) see their future evaporate before their eyes? Doesn't make you want to run out and buy stock, or a new car, or anything else for that matter. I can tell you that. Nothing says "batten down the hatches" like losing half your life savings.

Just to connect the dots here: When production lines are overbuilt and people don't want to invest or spend-- and when people don't have money!-- the GDP goes down. "The economy" shrinks.

quote:
Although I see your point that war is one of the few things a president could do to actively affect the economy.

...other than monetary, tax, and spending policy.

quote:
Well, you see, once the initial indignation against the US for the war subsides, people are going to realize that they just like the products sold by Coke and (yuck) Disney, and they're going to break down and buy them again.

I'm glad you're so cheerful. You should scoop up a shitload of Disney stock, then. It's going for half what it was a few years back. Coke's a bargain too.

Hahaha, I kid. Seriously, I think you're laboring under the misconception, very widespread, that people buy products because they like the products, or even because they products are good. That may sometimes be a reason, but only one reason, and any first year marketing student can tell you it doesn't have a whole lot to do with brand success.

Let's be serious for a second. Do you think Coke is all that great? That without it, people would feel a yearning for top-quality sugar water, flavored "brown?" That the French or Germans don't have the beverage technology to concoct such weapons of mass deliciousness? I think Coke's success has something to do with America's image in the world and people wanting to be a part of that. (Just as when we snobs buy Perrier, we aren't necessarily expressing a taste preference for that particular fizzy crap.) It's "Brand America," and Bush is hosing Brand America big time.

If you think that's a joke, it isn't. The White House started a whole Brand America program. The State Dept hired a Madison Avenue guy named Jack Trout to run it. Sadly, they've found imperialism hard to sell no matter what label they stick on it. The result: growing contempt for things American. That is not trivial. It is a marketing catastrophe.

quote:
Simply BECAUSE 80% of leading global brands are owned by US corporations, and half the sales of these are overseas, the world is going to have to do a lot to make any boycott felt in the long term.

Sounds kind of like "they'll buy from us because they have little choice." I don't share that view. One, they don't need a lot of our crap like Disney and Coke. What they're buying is not mouse ears and brown sugar water, but America. And if America pisses them off, they'll spend their spare Euros on some other crap. This is just the kind of opening our competitors have been waiting for. Maybe it doesn't scare you, but it scares the living piss out of Wall Street.

quote:
On a related note, a person I know who is pissed off at France decided not to drink French wine anymore. That is until the resteraunt served him a glass of red from France, and it was good. So he ordered another.

The difference is, your friend (I'm assuming) has not taken to the streets with a million others protesting against France. What has France done that's so horrible anyway? Not bombed people? By equating your friend's grievances with those of Europeans, you could be underestimating the wave of anti-Americanism that's looming over us.

Or who knows? Maybe it really doesn't hurt the economy to piss the world off.

Post #87176link

boorite
April 1, 2003 9:08 AM

That post was me. Fisho and I are coworkers, and he was logged in.

Post #87178link

boorite
April 1, 2003 9:41 AM

One more thing: I'll bet Coke spills more of its product than French wineries produce of theirs.

Post #87180link

not_Scyess
April 1, 2003 12:09 PM

quote:
quote:
Well, (tax cut + big spending) has an effect on the deficit, but it won't have any serious effects until long after the general public will hold him culpable. Economic effects, if any, will happen some time even after that.

If only. The fact is, the prospect of growing deficits fucks up investor confidence now. That's one reason why cutting taxes on the theory that people will invest the money they save is a dumb idea. Another reason is that there's a deeper source of low investor confidence-- excess production capacity.

Investor confidence is only one factor of the economy. No one really thinks that the US government is going to default on its loans. (Whether this is a justified perception or not I can't say.) The national debt is going to have to be pretty damned huge to make more than a superficial mark on the economy as a whole. Look at the time during Reagan's administration, when the government was spending bajillions on weapondry and the economy was chugging along just fine.

As for excess capacity -- that can be blamed on the tech bubble. People were producing fuckloads of everything with the assumption that hey, people were just going to keep buying it! As much as I'd love to blame that on Clinton, that was a totally non-presidential phenominon.

quote:
Giving people more money to buy stocks doesn't make them buy stocks if they don't think the stocks are going to make money.

I know. I always thought that was kind of stupid. But giving people more money is probably not going to hurt you in the polls, so fuck logic, right?

quote:
quote:
Mutual funds are not "The economy."

Of course mutual funds and the stock market are not "the economy." But fucking up the stock market hurts the economy. And you asked what Bush did to hurt the economy. So there's part of your answer.

As I said before, I have to concede that this war is one of the few things that the President can do to affect the economy. But the tax cuts only had a superficial effect.

quote:
So what do you suppose happens when millions and millions of Americans (myself included) see their future evaporate before their eyes?

I'll tell you what happens -- everyone goes around looking for someone to blame. That's human nature. Whether or not there actually is anyone to blame, people will find someone. And who better to blame than the person with the most political power in the country?

quote:
Just to connect the dots here: When production lines are overbuilt and people don't want to invest or spend-- and when people don't have money!-- the GDP goes down. "The economy" shrinks.

Exactly. But that doesn't mean you can blame overbuilt production lines on the White House.

quote:
quote:
Well, you see, once the initial indignation against the US for the war subsides, people are going to realize that they just like the products sold by Coke and (yuck) Disney, and they're going to break down and buy them again.

I'm glad you're so cheerful. You should scoop up a shitload of Disney stock, then. It's going for half what it was a few years back. Coke's a bargain too.

True... but again... it's no one person's fault.

quote:
Hahaha, I kid. Seriously, I think you're laboring under the misconception, very widespread, that people buy products because they like the products, or even because they products are good. That may sometimes be a reason, but only one reason, and any first year marketing student can tell you it doesn't have a whole lot to do with brand success.

I'm not at all under that misconception. 8) But if anyone has more brand-name equity and marketing muscle than Disney, it's Coke.

quote:
I think Coke's success has something to do with America's image in the world and people wanting to be a part of that. (Just as when we snobs buy Perrier, we aren't necessarily expressing a taste preference for that particular fizzy crap.) It's "Brand America," and Bush is hosing Brand America big time.

People perceive a difference in American culture and American policy. American brands were huge hit in China, even though America was still the political equivalent of satan. This was all before 9/11/01.

quote:
Sounds kind of like "they'll buy from us because they have little choice." I don't share that view. One, they don't need a lot of our crap like Disney and Coke. What they're buying is not mouse ears and brown sugar water, but America.

You make it sound as if big companies haven't done anything to localize their products. Coke has a huge reach all over the world, often by buying local brands. People don't often know it's Coke products they're buying. Like any successful business, if one product line goes sour, they'll focus on the other one.

quote:
Or who knows? Maybe it really doesn't hurt the economy to piss the world off.

Time will tell. (Yes, I choose to ignore your sarcasm in this case.)

Post #87190link

boorite
April 1, 2003 1:03 PM

quote:
Investor confidence is only one factor of the economy.

Yeah, like a bum heart or cancer is just one factor in health.

quote:
No one really thinks that the US government is going to default on its loans.

We were talking stocks. Bonds are fine right now (though oddly low-yield), but they don't even begin to address the stock market problem we have on our hands.

quote:
(Whether this is a justified perception or not I can't say.)

Confidence in bonds is justified, but in light of declining government revenues, one wonders how they're gonna pay.

quote:
The national debt is going to have to be pretty damned huge to make more than a superficial mark on the economy as a whole.

How's $7 trillion by 2012 sound? That's twice what it is now. And again, investors see farther down the road than that and make their moves accordingly. It affects the economy now.

quote:
Look at the time during Reagan's administration, when the government was spending bajillions on weapondry and the economy was chugging along just fine.

*boggle*

1987?

Reaganomics screwed investor confidence.

quote:
As for excess capacity -- that can be blamed on the tech bubble.

How so? Lots can be blamed on the tech bubble, but I'm not sure that's one of them. I thought it was mostly companies overinvesting in production capacity... a separate issue from overvalued startups. Maybe. I dunno.

quote:
I know. I always thought that was kind of stupid. But giving people more money is probably not going to hurt you in the polls, so fuck logic, right?

Yep. The reasons for the tax cut aren't the real reasons. But I hope Americans are smart enough to look in their accounts and see donut digits and realize Bush is not making them rich. Not that Gore would've, either.

quote:
I'll tell you what happens -- everyone goes around looking for someone to blame. That's human nature. Whether or not there actually is anyone to blame, people will find someone. And who better to blame than the person with the most political power in the country?

John Tesh?

quote:
... that doesn't mean you can blame overbuilt production lines on the White House.

True. You can blame them, however, for responding to that situation in ways that screw us.

quote:
True... but again... (Disney and Coke's troubles are) no one person's fault.

Actually, to the extent this administration has damaged America's standing in the world, and to the extent that in turn affects Disney and Coke, this is one we can lay right at Bush's feet.

quote:
I'm not at all under that misconception. 8) But if anyone has more brand-name equity and marketing muscle than Disney, it's Coke.

Coke is it!

aaagh trained reflexes

Well the point is that Coke has spent over 100 years tying its brand to the flag, which used to be a good thing for it. Now there's not enough marketing muscle in the world to untie it.

quote:
People perceive a difference in American culture and American policy. American brands were huge hit in China, even though America was still the political equivalent of satan.

Officially. But the reason the Chinese people wanted Levis and Coke wasn't because they were more comfortable and tastier (respectively) than their state-issued garments and beverages (although maybe they were). It was because America stood for something they wanted to be part of. America is rapidly abandoning that stance in most people's view. Soon, Levis will be about as cool as Mercedes-Benz was during WWII. Well, maybe.

quote:
You make it sound as if big companies haven't done anything to localize their products. Coke has a huge reach all over the world, often by buying local brands. People don't often know it's Coke products they're buying. Like any successful business, if one product line goes sour, they'll focus on the other one.


Coca-Cola alone accounts for 30%+ of carbonated soft drink sales worldwide. If it tanks, that's not good for the company.

quote:
(Yes, I choose to ignore your sarcasm in this case.)

Oho, I'm SO IMPRESSED that you ignored my SARCASM. (rolls eyes)

Post #87194link

not_Scyess
April 1, 2003 1:58 PM

This is way too long... I'm going to cut out a lot because I'm lazy.

quote:
quote:
No one really thinks that the US government is going to default on its loans.

We were talking stocks. Bonds are fine right now (though oddly low-yield), but they don't even begin to address the stock market problem we have on our hands.

Right, we were talking stocks. But what diffrence does a government debt make to a private stock? None -- unless you think the value of currency of the company's main business (US dollars) is going to tank. The only way debt would affect that is if the US is going to default on its debt -- or people think it's going to. As big as the US debt gets, it's going to have to be pretty fucking big before people think the US is going to default. The US still has its perception of economic strength.

quote:
quote:
The national debt is going to have to be pretty damned huge to make more than a superficial mark on the economy as a whole.

How's $7 trillion by 2012 sound? That's twice what it is now. And again, investors see farther down the road than that and make their moves accordingly. It affects the economy now.

But again, ask yourself why investors would care about debt. And 2012 is a long way away -- anyone could (and should) curb the horrendous debt appreciation by then. (In my opinion, by cutting spending rather than by raising taxes, but that's me.)

quote:
1987?

Point. :)

quote:
Reaganomics screwed investor confidence.

Smoke and mirrors. :) Misplaced blame, and all that.

quote:
How so? Lots can be blamed on the tech bubble, but I'm not sure that's one of them. I thought it was mostly companies overinvesting in production capacity... a separate issue from overvalued startups. Maybe. I dunno.

It wasn't just start-ups. Say, for example, X Co. wants to lay 40 trillion feet of fiber-optic cable because of a cross between a) that's what they're idiot finance department has lead them to think and b) that's what investors (public or private) want to hear. But it's not just X Co., because everyone wants to have more fiber-optic cable than Cher has fake body parts. So they all invest ump-teen billion dollars in it.

They're funded by investors or loans, which allow them to pay for the cable and also for the furniture, buildings, office supplies, etc. that the company needs.

Suddenly, (with a suddenness catalyzed by but in no way due to 9/11/01), everyone realizes, "Huh, these guys have spent more money than they can possibly earn back within the next century." So investors stop dumping money into hopeless schemes, and companies default on loans. Now everyone's out of luck, from the banks to the furniture suppliers to the construction companies.

Now, take this and multiply it by industries beyond just fiber-optic cable, and you'll see how the whole bubble bursting was a result of overspending, near-specutlation, and indeed some people's hopes to jump on the bandwagon and IPO in the frenzy before everyone realized their company could never ever make any money.

Where does the president, or indeed even fiscal policy, come into all this? Nowhere, that's where.

quote:
Well the point is that Coke has spent over 100 years tying its brand to the flag, which used to be a good thing for it. Now there's not enough marketing muscle in the world to untie it.

Maybe. I think Coke will pull through this just fine. I kind of hope Disney goes to hell, but that's just my personal taste.

quote:
Officially. But the reason the Chinese people wanted Levis and Coke wasn't because they were more comfortable and tastier (respectively) than their state-issued garments and beverages (although maybe they were). It was because America stood for something they wanted to be part of.

No, it was because American stuff was the fad. Fads run crazy wild in eastern Asia. If the fad's over, maybe it's because of American policy -- but most likely it's just because fads end. We'll never know for sure.

Post #87200link

Devin
April 1, 2003 5:00 PM

Damn you geeky economists.

Post #87217link

Forum archives » Fights Go Here » Peace?

stripcreator
Make a comic
Forums
featuring
diesel sweeties
jerkcity
exploding dog
goats
ko fight club
penny arcade
chopping block
also
Brad Sucks