Barack Obama Elected 44th President of the United States

WeiWuWei wrote:

The only difference between Keynesianism and pure Capitalism is that the former has no problem with federal deficit spending.

That's about it.

I'm with Zealot. Keynes - as well as FDR, who he influenced - was most certainly not a proponent of Socialism, nor even of a mixed economy. He was motivated by reactions within the Capitalist system and sought to fix those reactions - namely, the Great Depression and its effects - but he most certainly didn't want to get rid of Capitalism.

He was a "reformer", if that even means anything in this context.

---

I'm waiting for Barack to fuck up big time. Then we'll see how loyal his personality cult really is.

Oh. don't worry, he's screwed. If he makes any radical CHANGE, even to more regulated capitalism, he gets a capital strike and the US goes to hell. If not, nothing much happens.

WeiWuWei wrote:

I'm with Zealot. Keynes - as well as FDR, who he influenced - was most certainly not a proponent of Socialism, nor even of a mixed economy. He was motivated by reactions within the Capitalist system and sought to fix those reactions - namely, the Great Depression and its effects - but he most certainly didn't want to get rid of Capitalism.

He was a "reformer", if that even means anything in this context.

Probably not even a "reformer" but a "patcher". Like when you get a waterpipe with a fissure and you just put some duct tape or chewing gum to it.

WeiWuWei wrote:

I'm waiting for Barack to fuck up big time. Then we'll see how loyal his personality cult really is.

Me too... but I think he unfortunately will serve his purpose...

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

WeiWuWei wrote:

I'm waiting for Barack to fuck up big time. Then we'll see how loyal his personality cult really is.

Me too... but I think he unfortunately will serve his purpose...

Damn his competence!

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Zeronos, as for Keynesianism, it is not even mixed economics it's simply more regulated capitalism, just that.

Don't even know how I managed to make that mistake. I blame the fact I'd only been up ten minutes.

I think Obama will make a good attempt at reform, but the US will still be sh!t.

Liche wrote:

I think Obama will make a good attempt at reform, but the US will still be sh!t.

No, he learnt from Carter's mistakes. You know Obama's program of 'reaching out' to the Republicans? That is, eliminating any 'liberal' policies people would have voted him in for in the guise of 'reaching across borders'? Yeah, that.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I'm not surprised Obama is so over estimated.

Zeronos, as for Keynesianism, it is not even mixed economics it's simply more regulated capitalism, just that.

regulated capitalism is nonsense. it's a paradox. Capitalism thrives best without any regulations.

Kenzu wrote:

regulated capitalism is nonsense. it's a paradox. Capitalism thrives best without any regulations.

Who said otherwise? Inefficient capitalism is still capitalism.

Kenzu wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I'm not surprised Obama is so over estimated.

Zeronos, as for Keynesianism, it is not even mixed economics it's simply more regulated capitalism, just that.

regulated capitalism is nonsense. it's a paradox. Capitalism thrives best without any regulations.

because it has thrived under bush and was so oppressed under clinton?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

regulated capitalism is nonsense. it's a paradox. Capitalism thrives best without any regulations.

Who said otherwise? Inefficient capitalism is still capitalism.

Capitalism is a very efficient system, but a very ineffective system too.
Socialism is less efficient, but it is an effective system to raise people from poverty.

Efficiency is less important than effectivity.

The president basically just needs to make himself look good. As long as there are no major problems in the country, people will assume Barack Obama is making change, which is what he vowed to do.

Kenzu wrote:

Capitalism is a very efficient system, but a very ineffective system too.
Socialism is less efficient, but it is an effective system to raise people from poverty.

Efficiency is less important than effectivity.

What?! O_o Are you kidding me?

Socialism is both effective and efficient, why should it be unefficient?

Kenzu wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I'm not surprised Obama is so over estimated.

Zeronos, as for Keynesianism, it is not even mixed economics it's simply more regulated capitalism, just that.

regulated capitalism is nonsense. it's a paradox. Capitalism thrives best without any regulations.

It's not a paradox at all. Also, capitalism 'thrives' best without any regulation? No, it goes into crisis, and then relies on regulation to get it out.

Stos wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I'm not surprised Obama is so over estimated.

Zeronos, as for Keynesianism, it is not even mixed economics it's simply more regulated capitalism, just that.

regulated capitalism is nonsense. it's a paradox. Capitalism thrives best without any regulations.

It's not a paradox at all. Also, capitalism 'thrives' best without any regulation? No, it goes into crisis, and then relies on regulation to get it out.

Damn stos, the smartest thing I've heard you say in a while .

obama or mccain means nothing, both are right wingers... but obama would be a better choice for russia, with mccain it would be cold war reloded

Speznas wrote:

obama or mccain means nothing, both are right wingers... but obama would be a better choice for russia, with mccain it would be cold war reloded

New cold war would be awesome.

Quote :

New cold war would be awesome.

Ha ha, funny.