"Greatest Political Evil?"

Black Swan

John Adams cautioned Americans about their 2-party system: "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

Republicans have been labeled the "Party of No" in that they appear to stand together against most congressional bills authored by Democrats and endorsed by the Obama administration. What few seem to remember in America is that the Democrats were once labeled the "Party of No" when they were a minority in both houses of Congress controlled by Republicans during the 2nd Bill Clinton administration, and well into the GW Bush administrations. In both cases, be they Republicans or Democrats, the "Party of No" had the image of voting against congressional bills, not because they lacked merit, but because they were authored and endorsed by their opposing party.

Are many Americans leaving the two major parties, or electing not to join either, because of the adversarial and divisive nature of both parties, now voting Independent (if they bother to vote)? It's been reported that the Independent vote is growing, impacting the membership and power of both parties. Will Independents decide the 2014 elections?

Is this the "greatest political evil" under the American constitution, as it plays out between the two major parties of Democrats and Republicans today?

Brian?

The 2 party system has been a joke for many years. The main effect is the crushing sense of inevitability a huge proportion of the electorate feel.

Despite what some would have you believe, there is not right and left in US politics. There's the right and the more right. I honestly can't see how that's healthy, no alternative makes for the same mistakes over and over.

I believe that he low turnout figures in the 2nd half of the 20th century onwards were a result of this lack of choice.

As for independents deciding elections from now on; absolutely. Which is the way it should be. An increase in independent vote naturally moderates excessive swing towards right or left. Which in the US means it stops a huge swing right, no one is swinging left no matter what.

As I was saying in another thread, this large group of undecided voters means we won't see a Tea Party darling as president. Praise be to Allah

Amerika

I think "low information voters" are a far greater political evil than a two party system.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

I think "low information voters" are a far greater political evil than a two party system.

Are we talking about the quantity of information vs the quality of it?

Because I remember posting articles here a while back showing how people who relied on fox news for information were wrong about three basic facts about the iraq war.

If it wasn't for low information voters the majority of right wing politicians in the world would never be elected.

What about low information candidates, like Bush or Palin?

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

Are we talking about the quantity of information vs the quality of it?

Because I remember posting articles here a while back showing how people who relied on fox news for information were wrong about three basic facts about the iraq war.

If it wasn't for low information voters the majority of right wing politicians in the world would never be elected.

What about low information candidates, like Bush or Palin?

Quality!

And both sides decry their own view of the "low information voter." From the right they look at that block of voters as typically ones who vote democrat and vote on candidate's looks, candidate commercials, disinformation, social media musings, celebrity endorsements; and have very little interest in who the candidate is, what positions they have held, or what they have accomplished.

And the right can make the same claim that it wasn't for low information voters the majority of left wing politicians would never be elected... maybe even more so here in the states.

Or low information candidates, like Biden or Obama who doesn’t seem to have a clue what is going on in his administration?

So see it plays both ways, and that is why I consider them to be a greater political evil. They hurt everyone!

Brian?

Memnoch wrote: »

Are we talking about the quantity of information vs the quality of it?

Because I remember posting articles here a while back showing how people who relied on fox news for information were wrong about three basic facts about the iraq war.

If it wasn't for low information voters the majority of right wing politicians in the world would never be elected.

What about low information candidates, like Bush or Palin?

I think you're doing Bush a disservice by lumping him in with Palin. I know it's fun to have a go at Dubya, but he wasn't in the same class as Palin.

She was so uninformed about the world it was comical.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I think "low information voters" are a far greater political evil than a two party system.

You're 100% right. Particularly as the more educated a voter, they're more likely I vote Democrat.

Although you're probably going to tell me having a college education has no bearing on how informed a voter is.

I'd like to hear your recommendations for how voters should inform themselves.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Quality!

And both sides decry their own view of the "low information voter." From the right they look at that block of voters as typically ones who vote democrat and vote on candidate's looks, candidate commercials, disinformation, social media musings, celebrity endorsements; and have very little interest in who the candidate is, what positions they have held, or what they have accomplished.

And the right can make the same claim that it wasn't for low information voters the majority of left wing politicians would never be elected... maybe even more so here in the states.

Or low information candidates, like Biden or Obama who doesn’t seem to have a clue what is going on in his administration?

So see it plays both ways, and that is why I consider them to be a greater political evil. They hurt everyone!

It actually doesn't play both ways. You've just made all of that up. You're presenting opinion as fact.

Most democrat voters vote superficially? A nonsense claim.

Manach

My understanding, based on a book I've read on US politics, is that it is a structural issue. In that the electoral system is set-up for single person/single constituency. This has the effect of promoting a 2-party system (which in theory is more stable) instead of a more proportional (eg PR here or how Germany/France elects) system which would allow more viable 3rd party growth.
My opinion on the greatest evil (which I'm guilty of myself) is to demonise and think the worst of the other side of the political aisle - which is more pronounced in 2-party systems.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

It actually doesn't play both ways. You've just made all of that up. You're presenting opinion as fact.

Most democrat voters vote superficially? A nonsense claim.

I did state "From the right they look at that block of voters..."
And does that mean you consider Memnoch's parallel comment to mine as "fact" and a legitimate claim?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

You're 100% right. Particularly as the more educated a voter, they're more likely I vote Democrat.

I take it you consider that fact and not opinion, eh?

I'd like to hear your recommendations for how voters should inform themselves.

A good start would be educating themselves to a candidate's actions over words.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I take it you consider that fact and not opinion, eh?

It's easily available data. Yup.

A good start would be educating themselves to a candidate's actions over words.

Give me one information source you approve of.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I did state "From the right they look at that block of voters..."
And does that mean you consider Memnoch's parallel comment to mine as "fact" and a legitimate claim?

Yes because Memnoch is factually correct, you merely aped his point from but with a right wing slant.

In most countries, and particularly in the USA there's a large streak of anti intellectualism running through conservative ideologies.

Creationism, climate change denial being 2 examples that far too many in the GOP are fond of pedalling.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

It's easily available data. Yup.

A non-partisam source of that data would be appreciated.

Give me one information source you approve of.

I can’t pick any particular one right now. Perhaps using my wayback machine I could have in 2012 and 2008 and 2004 etc. I look at a number of sources to investigate how a candidate's track record supports their political claims on each issue important to me. Perhaps there are ones that do overall it in a non-partisan manner. If not, it would be something informative come 2016.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Yes because Memnoch is factually correct, you merely aped his point from but with a right wing slant.

In most countries, and particularly in the USA there's a large streak of anti intellectualism running through conservative ideologies.

Creationism, climate change denial being 2 examples that far too many in the GOP are fond of pedalling.

Sounds simply like opinion to me.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Sounds simply like opinion to me.

It's not.

Find me a fundamentalist Christian who believes in the literal interpretation of the bible and is left wing. Do that and I'll take it back.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

A non-partisam source of that data would be appreciated.

Voters with post graduate education broke 55 to 42 to Obama in 2012.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

I can’t pick any particular one right now. Perhaps using my wayback machine I could have in 2012 and 2008 and 2004 etc. I look at a number of sources to investigate how a candidate's track record supports their political claims on each issue important to me. Perhaps there are ones that do overall it in a non-partisan manner. If not, it would be something informative come 2016.

So how do you propose these poorly informed voters become informed? By your standard? Google?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Voters with post graduate education broke 55 to 42 to Obama in 2012.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

Interesting, your source of information could also be used to make the claim that the most uneducated "Some High School" also went overwhelmingly for Obama – that they are of the same mind as the most educated. You’d think by your argument they would have gone for Romney. So do we then assume the most uneducated and the most educated are the same?

So how do you propose these poorly informed voters become informed? By your standard? Google?

Why not Google?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

It's not.

Find me a fundamentalist Christian who believes in the literal interpretation of the bible and is left wing. Do that and I'll take it back.

I don't see how that relates to what we are debating.

20Cent

Say there are three parties party 1 wins 30% party 2 30% and party 3 40%. Party 3 wins yet 60% of people didn't vote for them.

Eggy Baby!

The biggest political evil is the US is gerrymandering, because this helps to ensure the domination of the two main parties through the bizarre restructuring of districts as in Texas (apologies for the small pictures):



In and around Chicago:



And Cali's "Ribbon of Shame", which is so thin it is said to disappear at high tide:



And a general map of the US:



As usual, a picture (or a few) tells a thousand words.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

Sounds simply like opinion to me.

How can people who deny global warming and think that creationism should be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution be anything but low information voters?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I don't see how that relates to what we are debating.

What? It's entirely relevant.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Interesting, your source of information could also be used to make the claim that the most uneducated "Some High School" also went overwhelmingly for Obama – that they are of the same mind as the most educated. You’d think by your argument they would have gone for Romney. So do we then assume the most uneducated and the most educated are the same?

This is your sidestep? I honestly expected better.

I made the simple point that the most educated people tend to lean liberal. I provided data to support this point. Have the decency to cede the point gracefully

Why not Google?

Because it's a search engine. Not a news source.

feargale

I endorse the view of those here who have identified the winner takes all electoral system ( as opposed to proportional politics ) as the root political problem of USA - and other countries too e.g. U.K. and some Commonwealth countries. It polarises people, and as pointed out by some facilitates gerrymandering. ( There seems to be no independent commission in USA to draw constituencies. ) It usually exists as a conspiracy between the two main parties to exclude minor parties, and thus permanently exclude huge sections of the population from any prospect or share of power, alienating them in the process. The framers of the US Constitution had little precedent to guide them, and while well meaning in their attempts to limit power, devised a system which ultimately facilitated dysfunctional government. Unfortunately their Constitution acquired a sacred status and fossilised, when in reality like all constitutions it was a fallible document drawn up by fallible people. And while Europe lagged behind at the time in terms of democratic development, it eventually overtook the USA in effecting political reforms.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

This is your sidestep? I honestly expected better.

I made the simple point that the most educated people tend to lean liberal. I provided data to support this point. Have the decency to cede the point gracefully

In my attempt to stay warm, can I borrow that ideological blanket you seem to be wrapped in? It’s been –23 degrees Celsius here with no relief in the near future, and the heater in my car is on the fritz.

So let me get this straight. You claim most educated people tend to lean liberal, and you provide a link to support that claim ("I provided data to support this point."), and to support your contention you made the comment "Voters with post graduate education broke 55 to 42 to Obama in 2012." Yet when I point out that using your reasoning and your supporting data, one could also make the claim that the most uneducated vote liberal, (as "Some High School" went overwhelmingly for Obama 64 to 35), it is deserved of outrage... OUTRAGE!

Don’t you feel a tad silly?

Because it's a search engine. Not a news source.

Is it not an engine, or tool, that can bring one to a news source when searching for information?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

In my attempt to stay warm, can I borrow that ideological blanket you seem to be wrapped in? It’s been –23 degrees Celsius here with no relief in the near future, and the heater in my car is on the fritz.

What ideological blanket is that? Is this an attempt at humour?

So let me get this straight. You claim most educated people tend to lean liberal, and you provide a link to support that claim ("I provided data to support this point."), and to support your contention you made the comment "Voters with post graduate education broke 55 to 42 to Obama in 2012." Yet when I point out that using your reasoning and your supporting data, one could also make the claim that the most uneducated vote liberal, (as "Some High School" went overwhelmingly for Obama 64 to 35), it is deserved of outrage... OUTRAGE!

I'm going to repost your response to reply to the above:

Amerika wrote: »

Interesting, your source of information could also be used to make the claim that the most uneducated "Some High School" also went overwhelmingly for Obama – that they are of the same mind as the most educated. You’d think by your argument they would have gone for Romney. So do we then assume the most uneducated and the most educated are the same?

The part in bold is pure nonsense.

Also the the "some high school" demographic is 3% of the electorate, so whatever way the poll turned out is statistically in the margin for error i.e. no conclusion can be drawn from it.

I'd also say that education can be dismissed as a factor with the "some high school" voters because they are more likely to be minorities. Minorities went in huge numbers for Obama. This is actually opinion though, not fact, so I won't try to present it as fact.

Don’t you feel a tad silly?

I do feel very silly actually. I feel silly because this debate is pointless if you can't cede a simple fact without trying to spin it somehow. So what's the point in trying to enter into any type of serious debate.

Is it not an engine, or tool, that can bring one to a news source when searching for information?

It can, but according to you all of the news sources available are biased. So what's the point in googling anything?

Anyway, for the record I like this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

Jonny7

And at the other end of the spectrum there can be too many political parties (Belgium, Italy) which can create it's own set of problems

feargale

Jonny7 wrote: »

And at the other end of the spectrum there can be too many political parties (Belgium, Italy) which can create it's own set of problems

Your examples are selective and flawed.
Belgium's problems spring, not from a multiplicity of parties, but from a deep-seated linguistic divide that leaves Flemings and Walloons perceiving themselves as having little in common other than a king and a football team. Think Northern Ireland, Lebanon, and Cyprus before partition.
Italy is equally ungovernable for different reasons. We all know that most Italians are very nice people, but as a nation they have shown dreadful political judgement at times. Too many parties had nothing to do with the rise of Mussolini or Berlusconi.

sin_city

20Cent wrote: »

Say there are three parties party 1 wins 30% party 2 30% and party 3 40%. Party 3 wins yet 60% of people didn't vote for them.

So? Are you saying there is a problem with democracy?

Ahhhhhh, that's why the founders never mentioned it in the constituion.

Love Ben Franklin's quote:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

It must be pretty obvious that there is not really much difference between the two parties in the US and it is easier for money to play off the voters in a 2 horse race than if there were more.

Basically with democrats and republicans you're getting either well done steak or rare but it's still steak.

Jonny7

feargale wrote: »

Your examples are selective and flawed.
Belgium's problems spring, not from a multiplicity of parties, but from a deep-seated linguistic divide that leaves Flemings and Walloons perceiving themselves as having little in common other than a king and a football team. Think Northern Ireland, Lebanon, and Cyprus before partition.
Italy is equally ungovernable for different reasons. We all know that most Italians are very nice people, but as a nation they have shown dreadful political judgement at times. Too many parties had nothing to do with the rise of Mussolini or Berlusconi.

Missed my point

A large amount of political parties can lead to political deadlock and ridiculous coalitions aka it has it's own set of problems

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

Missed my point

A large amount of political parties can lead to political deadlock and ridiculous coalitions aka it has it's own set of problems

Yes, correct. This was why Hitler made himself Fuhrer so he could quickly get laws passed.

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Yes, correct. This was why Hitler made himself Fuhrer so he could quickly get laws passed.

You're excellent at pointing out the problems. What are your solutions?

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

You're excellent at pointing out the problems. What are your solutions?

A Republic that protects everyone's rights with a little government as possible. Wherever you have this situation you will have economic growth.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Look at what Chile has done. Look at the number of parties there. Compare it to Argentina with its interfering government.

How did China grow so much in the last few decades??

It made government less and less relevant in the goings on of the country.

It doesn't matter about the parties or the system.

If the government is small the country will grow.

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

How did China grow so much in the last few decades??

It made government less and less relevant in the goings on of the country.

So a recipe for success would be for countries to emulate the current Chinese system?

:pac:

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

A Republic that protects everyone's rights with a little government as possible. Wherever you have this situation you will have economic growth.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Look at what Chile has done. Look at the number of parties there. Compare it to Argentina with its interfering government.

How did China grow so much in the last few decades??

It made government less and less relevant in the goings on of the country.

It doesn't matter about the parties or the system.

If the government is small the country will grow.

A republic that respects individual rights, great.

A system modelled on China? Seriously?
You couldn't get further forms Republic than China.

sin_city

You totally missed my point.

China's government since the 1980s has increasingly allowed more and more freedom.

It has gone from a Communist country to a Capitalist country that is ruled by a party called the Communist Party.

The US has gone in the other direction. Government is interfering in everything and America is becoming a police state.

The current Chinese system is only a phase in my opinion that will see China go from peasants to the largest economy in the world. This has seen their economy grow incredibly....in this context, yes I would love China's growth.

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

China's government since the 1980s has increasingly allowed more and more freedom.
It has gone from a Communist country to a Capitalist country that is ruled by a party called the Communist Party.

The US has gone in the other direction. Government is interfering in everything and America is becoming a police state.

So which do you think is the more restricted society? China or the USA? Which has the most freedom for its citizens?

Manach

Based on the amount of data each state collects on its citizens - a tie?

sin_city

InTheTrees wrote: »

So which do you think is the more restricted society? China or the USA? Which has the most freedom for its citizens?

Well, clearly the US propaganda is working on you. Have you ever heard of Edward Snowden? LOL

I don't know where we are at in this moment but I can see the US is going towards a police state and China is moving in the other direction.

You can say this and that but whenever you have small government with adherence to laws you have growth.

As government grows, economic growth suffers.

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

How did China grow so much in the last few decades??

It made government less and less relevant in the goings on of the country.

It doesn't matter about the parties or the system.

If the government is small the country will grow.

Wow. Just WOW are you laughably ill-informed.

Do you have any inkling, whatsoever, of how inextricably the Chinese gov't is involved in not only it's economy, but individual companies?

Do you actually believe that the Chinese gov't is somehow, magically, 'small'?

Really? No, seriously: really?

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Well, clearly the US propaganda is working on you. Have you ever heard of Edward Snowden? LOL

I don't know where we are at in this moment but I can see the US is going towards a police state and China is moving in the other direction.

China liberalised its economy and nothing else. Even now the Chinese government maintains tight control of business. You're not very well informed.

You can say this and that but whenever you have small government with adherence to laws you have growth.

As government grows, economic growth suffers.

Says who? Go on, prove that. I'm willing to bet you can't.

sin_city

I see people still missing the point. So eager to jump in and exert themselves that they don't get the point.

I am comparing China in the 60s and 70s to China today.

You can also make the same comparison to the US....As more and more social programs are added and the spending increases the US becomes less economically successful.

Pure capitalism which involves small government always trumps large bloated governments which signal the end of a current system.

Examples of small government versus big government in regional sense:

North Korea V South Korea
East Germany V West Germany
Argentina V Chile, Venezuela
Switzerland V rest of Europe


When Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, Zimbabwe nationalized large sections of their economies they all suffered and this can still be seen today.....unless you write "Says who? Go on, prove that. I'm willing to bet you can't. "...maybe you can't see it then....maybe a person like that would be "not very well informed. " in the grand scheme of things

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

I see people still missing the point. So eager to jump in and exert themselves that they don't get the point.

No, that's simply not happening.

You made wildly ignorant statements, laughably false in nature, and now that people have called you on them, you're attempting to redirect.

It seems to have escaped your notice that the US gov't has actually shrunk in the past few years, under Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/04/business/economy/off-the-charts-shrinking-government.html

So, then, what were you talking about again?

sin_city

I think you still are not understanding the big picture and only focusing on small annual changes.

Please refrain from getting personal.........Once again....the big picture....




Your link showed the gov sector shrinking as % of overall GDP......It still was increased in number:

2013 United States federal budget – $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)
2012 United States federal budget – $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
2011 United States federal budget – $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 United States federal budget – $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget – $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget – $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget – $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget – $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget – $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget – $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget – $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget – $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 United States federal budget – $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
2000 United States federal budget – $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
1999 United States federal budget – $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
1998 United States federal budget – $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
1997 United States federal budget – $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
1996 United States federal budget – $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

The only way the debt can be serviced is by keeping interest rates at 0%

Things will get problematic for the US in the near future.


Here´s China's FOREX reserves
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/china-foreign-exchange-reserves.png?s=chinaforexcres

Also they are now largest buyer of gold.....

Try to look at the overall picture as I said rather than short term book fiddling.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

A
How did China grow so much in the last few decades??

It made government less and less relevant in the goings on of the country.

Not the best example

China has a vast, bureaucratic, controlling and very intrusive government

Also, they grew because they reformed, adopted capitalism, have an enormous work-force whom will work for buttons (although that's slowly changing)

The average standard of living in China is far below European standards

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

Not the best example

China has a vast, bureaucratic, controlling and very intrusive government

Also, they grew because they reformed, adopted capitalism, have an enormous work-force whom will work for buttons (although that's slowly changing)

The average standard of living in China is far below European standards

Once again, missing the point.

China has brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and fast approaching the middle class...

Europe and the US's wages have gone down in real terms or stagnated at best.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Once again, missing the point.

China has brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and fast approaching the middle class...

Correct, China has brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty - their economy has accelerated with huge growth

Workers near survival point will work 14 hours a day on tiny wages, this is evident in all BRIC countries and is one of the main factors for high growth

But a crucial point to remember is they are essentially playing catch-up, these workers will not want to remain in these conditions indefinitely

This is already heavily evident in China - before, companies couldn't drive the workers away from the doors, now they have to hold "open days" and offer better pay, better conditions, shorter working hours and (gradually) on a governmental level - better rights, equality, terms, etc

As the country progresses and catches up with e.g. Europe, this large growth slows naturally

TL:DR growth in developing countries is not an indicator they have "better systems" than more developed countries - just that they are successfully enacting basic economic principles that help drive countries out of poverty towards prosperity

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

I see people still missing the point. So eager to jump in and exert themselves that they don't get the point.

I am comparing China in the 60s and 70s to China today.

That's not what you said. But ok, I understand your actual point now: a capitalist society will have higher growth than a 1960s or 70s Maoist society. You're right.

You can also make the same comparison to the US....As more and more social programs are added and the spending increases the US becomes less economically successful.

You're making some leap here. For a start, is the US less successful? By which metrics are we gauging success?

Pure capitalism which involves small government always trumps large bloated governments which signal the end of a current system.

Proof? Where's this triumphant pure capitalist society?

Examples of small government versus big government in regional sense:

North Korea V South Korea
East Germany V West Germany
Argentina V Chile, Venezuela
Switzerland V rest of Europe

You have communist v capitalist, present and past. Argentina v Chile and Venezuela?

Do you realise how badly laissez faire capitalism has hurt all 3 of those countries? You can't take a snap shot in time and blame all of their current problems on their current governments.

Edit: Switzerland v the rest of Europe. So the only reason for Swiss prosperity is the relative size of their government? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt actually, you probably don't think it's the only reason. Your realise there is nothing small about the Swiss government don't you? Their federal government is relatively small but state governments take up the slack nicely. Maybe they've found a model that works for Switzerland. Maybe it's not all so black and white.

When Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, Zimbabwe nationalized large sections of their economies they all suffered and this can still be seen today.....unless you write "Says who? Go on, prove that. I'm willing to bet you can't. "...maybe you can't see it then....maybe a person like that would be "not very well informed. " in the grand scheme of things

Why are we talking about nationalised industries now ? I thought we were talking about government spend v economic growth. I was at least.

What I want from you is actual facts to support your points. What are we defining economic success by? Stop this nonsense of naming 2 countries that are wildly different and try to shoe horn them in to prove your point.

What I'm starting to see us that you have an extremely one dimensional view of history. You see economic growth as the no.1 metric to judge a society by, a very sad outlook.

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

I think you still are not understanding the big picture and only focusing on small annual changes.

Please refrain from getting personal.........Once again....the big picture....

I understand the big picture quite well, thanks. I also understand that you offered up nonsensical statements and basically lied and, when challenged on them, you try and obfuscate and address things irrelevant to the statements and lies you where challenged on.

It's hardly 'personal'.

The only way the debt can be serviced is by keeping interest rates at 0%

Things will get problematic for the US in the near future.

You understand that what you posted is utterly irrelevant to what I'm talking about?

Oh. Perhaps you actually don't.

Here´s China's FOREX reserves
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/china-foreign-exchange-reserves.png?s=chinaforexcres

Also they are now largest buyer of gold.....

Try to look at the overall picture as I said rather than short term book fiddling.

Yawn. More irrelevancies.

Eggy Baby!

Whether small or large government will work for a country is largely based on the social and economic nuances of said country. Reducing the size of the government is not a general magic solution for poor economic growth (in fact, in America in the 1930s, the government MASSIVELY increased its role in the economy in order to stimulate the economy). Hell, nowadays even the economy of the USA is an illusory free market. They maintain the outward appearance of a free market economy but in reality the government has a large role in it.

In contrast, Russia adopted an unrestricted capitalist economy after the USSR was dissolved and its economy imploded. Now its ostensibly doing quite well. Nuances.