Banker/Wall Street Governance

[Riverwind]

I put free trade naysayers in the same category as flat Earthers and global warming deniers.

I agree that the the theoretical model used to justify free trade makes sense. However, just because something makes sense in theory does not mean it makes sense in practice. The practical problems with free trade start with the fact is no one really wants true free trade - everyone has things that they want protected.

For example, true free trade requires free trade in labour with means we should eliminate all border and immigration controls. Most people don't want that so we end up with rich societies where there is a shortage of labour for unskilled jobs. This labour shortage pushes up the cost living for people with skilled jobs and makes it next to impossible for them to compete with skilled labour in countries with no shortage of unskilled labour.

The second problem with free trade is the distribution of benefits. Free trade advocates are always people who think they will benefit from free trade. However, not everyone will benefit there will be many people who will end up losers. This is not a problem if you are taking about a small percentage of a society - however, I expect to see the standard of living to drop for the majority of Canadians in the next 20 years because of free trade because there is a global surplus of labour and a global shortage of capital and most Canadians only have labour to offer.

The later comment does not mean that free trade does not work at a global level - free trade will likely make the Indians and Chinese alot wealthier than they are now. The problem is most people in Canada/US are not interested in sacrificing their standard of living so Indians and Chinese can be more wealthy. This is why free trade will encounter more political opposition as time goes on and it naive to think that lectures by wealthy people with lots of capital to invest in China will change the minds of people who only have labour to offer.

[Jenna]

dont you see that we're in big big trouble?

citizens in concentration camps?

more violated rights, more outraged olberman

[PolyNewbie]

Charles Anthony:I highly recommend taking a high-school introductory economics course to teach the elementary mechanics of supply and demand. Otherwise, you have no hope to understand free trade. If you are lucky, you can find a local school that offers evening continuing education courses. Often, the schools have very lax requirements for people who are taking courses for personal enrichment.

I suggest that you keep your suggestions to yourself- especially if you think any basic high school economics is going to help you understand todays situtaion. Kudos for you for taking such courses but understanding what is going on today takes a lot more than that.

Why don't you explain why you know that free trade is so wonderful.

[Charles Anthony]

I suggest that you keep your suggestions to yourself-

Fine. The last time I tried to explain international trade to an economically uneducated person was frustratingly futile:

If the money goes to the lightbulb makers, they will spend it on things they need locally. If we could in the scenario cut off the sun, because they won't take anything from us that we can get money for, it would be in our best interest to do so as we can supply ourselves with adequate light and keep money circulating through the economy not sending it to the sun.

Yeah, we should put trade barriers to protect our domestic lighting industry from cheap imports of sunlight from the Sun. Sounds like a ingenious way of increasing our wealth!

However, not everyone will benefit there will be many people who will end up losers. This is not a problem if you are taking about a small percentage of a society - however, I expect to see the standard of living to drop for the majority of Canadians in the next 20 years because of free trade because there is a global surplus of labour and a global shortage of capital and most Canadians only have labour to offer.

I agree. Many people in Canada are feeling those effects now. A buddy of mine (freelance computer engineer) was told flat-out by a potential international client that a firm in India is offering to do the same job for 1/10th of my buddy's quote.

The problem is most people in Canada/US are not interested in sacrificing their standard of living so Indians and Chinese can be more wealthy. This is why free trade will encounter more political opposition as time goes on

However, the changes are gradual. Thus, I doubt North Americans will have the power reverse it.

[PolyNewbie]

Charles Anthony:Fine. The last time I tried to explain international trade to an economically uneducated person was frustratingly futile:

How many books on money and banking have you read ? What sources do you learn from ?

[Jenna]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington has risen from almost a third to almost half over the past four years, a CNN poll released Monday found.

Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

But the Clinton administration did not get off lightly either. The latest poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, found that 41 percent of respondents blamed his administration a "great deal" or a "moderate amount" for the attacks. (Read the complete poll results -- PDF)

haha @ at least half the population being "conspiracy theorists"

you guys are funny

[Riverwind]

Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

Gawd, you seem to be incapable of understanding the English language - "blaming Bush for the attacks" does not mean that people think he planted bombs. It most likely means that people think he could have done more to prevent the attacks in the first place. So don't bother wasting time posting poll results that mean nothing.

[Jenna]

um, why is it up to you to decide what that means?

it doesnt say that at all

blame?

as in hold responsible?

blame.

lol, could it be a more descriptive word?

serious though, where'd you get that definition from, id like to see it please

[guyser]

um, why is it up to you to decide what that means?

it doesnt say that at all

blame?

as in hold responsible?

blame.

lol, could it be a more descriptive word?

serious though, where'd you get that definition from, id like to see it please

Jenna, it is not up to anyone of us to decide. Post the link as I could not find anything on CNN about a poll like this. (I do not doubt it exists-just cant find it)

Anyhow, since the poll says they blame Clinton too , they could not possibly mean Willy planted the bombs alongside Bush.

You see this is what we are getting at. You do not comprehend , but distort, obfuscate and BS us.

Without seeing the poll, let me ask you. Did they ask if Bush planted the bombs, or did Bush have his minions plant the bombs?Same with Clinton?

Post the link and we will have our answer. Should you be right, I will apologize from the top of the mountains, and I will post a sincere apology to you.

[Jenna]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/11/911.poll/index.html

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/09/11/rel21i.pdf

they hold the administration responsible

for terror attacks

what am i saying that isnt truthful?

now let me find the other poll, where 46% believe that the government "carried out the attacks"

by the way, why am i having to post links to mainstream news articles

ive seen most of this stuff on the news at least once

what are you guys watching, fox?

[kimmy]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington has risen from almost a third to almost half over the past four years, a CNN poll released Monday found.

Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

But the Clinton administration did not get off lightly either. The latest poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, found that 41 percent of respondents blamed his administration a "great deal" or a "moderate amount" for the attacks. (Read the complete poll results -- PDF)

haha @ at least half the population being "conspiracy theorists"

you guys are funny

Yeah, and when we look at the actual poll questions asked, we'll discover that most of those people blame the government for ignoring intelligence reports or for the disorganized and late response by the Air Force, and nobody who believes the government had the buildings blown up. PolyNewbie has been saying for months how many people believe conspiracy theory, but the truth always turns out to be more like this:

Prison Planet: Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story. Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll

Alex Jones, that bastion of journalistic integrity, quotes the poll thusly:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

See? It's not just a movement, it's a revolution! 84%! Wow! Everybody thinks the government did it!

Except when you actually read what the poll was asking, it says:

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

(source: the actual poll, right from Angus Reid)

Alex Jones neglected to mention the part of the question that explains what people polled think Bush was lying about.

He clipped the most important part of the question off, to make the poll say what he wants it to say.

Alex Jones is lying about what the poll says. How much else is he lying about, and why should people believe him when he talks about anything else?

-k

[Jenna]

oh ok

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/13469

[Jenna]

"Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002."

hiding info = involvement

[Riverwind]

"Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002."

More BS. It is public knowledge that the FBI had intelligence that Al Queda was planning something before 9/11 happened. The people who responding to the poll probably are thinking that the intelligence information was more detailed than Bush has admitted. That said, having information that could have allowed you prevent a murder is _not_ the same as being involved in the murder. Everyone except the truthie wackos understands this.

[Jenna]

yeah, "probably"

good times

http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231

[kimmy]

"Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002."

hiding info = involvement

That's stupid even by your standards. I thought you said you went to college. You can't write, and you apparently can't read very well either. What college did you attend? PolyNewbie's School of Toaster Repair?

The question, again:

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

People were specifically asked whether they believe Bush when he said he had no warning.

You can't change the meaning of the question by saying something retarded like "hiding info = involvement"

The question asks what it asks, and trying to spin the result into something different is a big lie. Why do you have so much trust in this particular liar?

-k

[Jenna]

Zogby Special Feature

A WORD ABOUT OUR POLL OF AMERICAN THINKING TOWARD THE 9/11 TERRORIST ATTACKS:

[Riverwind]

http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231

The only question which come close to supporting your truthie nonsense is:

24. Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?

42% said they thought there was a cover up. However, this question does not ask people what they thought was being covered up. Many people who agreed that there is something being covered up probably suspect gov't incompentance but do _not_ believe that the gov't actually planned the event.

You simply do not understand the limitations of surveys and and you are trying to draw conclusions that are not justified by the questions asked.

[kimmy]

Don't try and dodge the question by posting pages and pages of copyrighted material (and by the way, posting pages and pages of copyrighted material is against the forum rules.)

Why don't you tell us why you think Alex Jones lied about what that poll actually says?

-k

[Charles Anthony]

There must be a conspiracy out there.

you guys are funny

Not really.

hiding info = involvement

I think I have found where everything is hidden. This is what I call funny.

[guyser]

blah blah blah..not going to re post that.

Not one thing in your previous few posts are linked to anything that you hold to be the truth.

And that is the US set off the bombs, one way or another.

Not one thing.......not one damn thing. And yet, you still try.

[Jenna]

punch and judy?

ok....

heres one more, just for fun

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/27982...piracy02ww.html

why are you harassing me about alex jones?

i mentioned him like once, and youve mentioned him maybe 5 times now

why arent you harassing me about lou dobbs or olberman?

arent they liars too?

[Riverwind]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/27982...piracy02ww.html

More BS.

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them" because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

This question does not say anything about the number of people who believe the gov't planned the attacks.

Kimmy has shown that Alex Jones is a liar. If he is willing to lie about something as simple as survey results then what else is he willing to lie about?

[kimmy]

Btw, thanks Jenna, I did enjoy the Keith Olbermann and Lou Dobbs videos.

I especially enjoyed the Olbermann piece about the chaos at Air Force control on 9/11. That's a pretty powerful explanation for why the Air Force was unable to intercept any of the hijacked planes. I will be sure to repost it next time the Truthies start yapping about a "stand down order", or start talking about how it's not believable that the Air Force couldn't intercept the planes. After watching that video, the reasons why the Air Force didn't stop the attacks are quite clear.

I also enjoyed the Olbermann editorial about the loss of civil rights under the guise of "security". He's right, the erosion of civil rights is a very serious issue. This doesn't actually have anything to do with the topic of a North American Union, but it was an excellent speech nonetheless.

Lou Dobbs is certainly fired up about SPP. He says trade and border security issues are being settled behind closed doors. He's also very upset about increased economic integration of North America, perhaps with good reason. After all, many Canadians are still upset about NAFTA, and the issue of whether free trade between our nations has been good or bad probably depends on your field of work. Perhaps Dobbs is right to anticipate SPP having negative effects for Americans. However, nowhere in any of those clips did I see Lou Dobbs lend any support to the idea that the SPP is about more than trade and security. He did not mention anything that remotely suggests that there will be a single transcontinental government or anything of that nature.

I got quite a laugh out of the "Infowars" video you linked to. Scary music, explosions, a couple of Dobbs soundbites from the above-mentioned report taken out of context, an angry Libertarian Party candidate ranting about a communist state, and finally a big commercial at the end for Alex Jones' shitty websites.

-k

[Canadian Blue]

Wow Jenna and Polynewbie are a match made in heaven.

Maybe you two can get together and start up a communal settlement in Guyana, far away from the scary international bankers and the Rockefellers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown