Who cares? His only upside so far, if you can call it that, has been: "Doesn't look at stupid as Bush/McCain". Otherwise he's rather useless a president, no? Economy's in the trash, the troops are still in Iraq, education is still plummeting, 10% of the country is still starving...
Well, at least US still *has* elections, which is more than I can say for my country.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Bush and Obama's spending policies, along with the Fed, have destroyed the U.S. dollar. Obama is going to try to cut federal spending and raise taxes like we did in the 70s to avert this crisis. Unfortunately, this time around the debt has become so huge the interest payments alone are in excess of $300 billion dollars, and that doesn't even go towards paying off the main debt.
They won't be able to simply print their way out of this mess this time around either, as the system has exhausted itself as the dollar has been inflated to a point where much of its value is gone, and our debt holders are beginning to demand other forms of repayment. We're looking at currency collapse and hyperinflation within the next 10 years, and its unfortunate that most of the American people will be surprised by this
I find it morbidly amusing most people don't even know what the hell inflation or fiat is. For all our lives of chasing money and profit, you'd think someone would ask the question of what exactly these things are. Who needs religion when you have this ###### going on?..
But, I digress. If Obama did care about his nation, he wouldn't concern himself with war on terror or war on drugs or abortions or gаy marriage or whatever... He'd first stop this ass-backwards scheme of borrowing nation's money from private banks at interest which tax-payers then have to repay. Big issues suddenly don't sound so big when you realise <a href="http://www.chartingstocks.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/cpi.png" target="_blank">US lost 80% of it's wealth in the last 20 years</a> just thanks to that.
Bah. Look at me. I sound like Ron Paul. But, seriously, I don't see how his approval ratings matter. He's still the one making the decisions, not you.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Well the real threat we face is accepting a new regional fiat currency directed by the World Bank some point during the coming depression. Rather than retaking the control of our money supply out from foreign hands, it will give these international banking dynasties more power to direct the fate of our constitutional republic, rather than our own government and people.
<!--quoteo(post=1748926:date=Jan 24 2010, 07:22 PM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ Jan 24 2010, 07:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748926"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well the real threat we face is accepting a new regional fiat currency directed by the World Bank some point during the coming depression. Rather than retaking the control of our money supply out from foreign hands, it will give these international banking dynasties more power to direct the fate of our constitutional republic, rather than our own government and people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Amero? Yeah, why not. Both present and history abundantly show we're completely unable to stand up to the very few in position of power that rests its fragile neck entirely in our own hands. Of course, the real fun time will be when we realise we've pumped and mined this planet dry of everything we actually need to live, and money doesn't taste quite as good as food.
It's not like it's something too hard to solve either. Money as it exists today has no value other than public's faith in it, and that needs no work or revolution to change.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
I don't think the U.N. or the World Bank have enough power on their own to create a new currency. Most of the power they currently derive is from the U.S. I'm not saying other countries aren't powerful, but most of the other countries tend to keep to themselves more. If the U.S. lost its status as a superpower I don't think there would be anyone to claim that new title. China might want to but I think they'd stick to the Eastern Hemisphere for the(un)foreseeable future.
I do worry about the economic stability if other countries start taking more varied currencies as "fiat" currency. If it wasn't for economic pressure from the U.S. they would do so already. Makes sense to hedge your bets with multiple currencies.
<!--quoteo(post=1748533:date=Jan 22 2010, 10:55 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Jan 22 2010, 10:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Who cares? His only upside so far, if you can call it that, has been: "Doesn't look at stupid as Bush/McCain". Otherwise he's rather useless a president, no? Economy's in the trash, the troops are still in Iraq, education is still plummeting, 10% of the country is still starving...
Well, at least US still *has* elections, which is more than I can say for my country.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I understand it 'doesn't look stupid' is the entire point of the head of state, distributed democratic government is designed to make it impossible to get anything done for the simple reason that if you could, people would use it to rule the country.
Electing the head of state to make changes is dictatorship, democratic perhaps but probably not for long, as the first thing any dictator would do is ban elections.
The US and UK heads of state are mostly just there to give speeches, talk to the queen, and maybe go on the 5 pound note in 100 years time. So it helps if they look good in a suit.
Oh and America names aircraft carriers after theirs, so it helps if they don't have silly names as well.
<!--quoteo(post=1749010:date=Jan 25 2010, 02:12 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jan 25 2010, 02:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749010"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think the U.N. or the World Bank have enough power on their own to create a new currency.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Printing currency isn't exactly a bad deal, especially in the age of electronic money. I believe the original point was: it may offered as yet another false hope, another fractional reserve fiat system which will collapse within decades without actually doing anything to pull the economy out of the downward spiral.
<!--quoteo(post=1749262:date=Jan 26 2010, 06:15 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 26 2010, 06:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749262"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As I understand it 'doesn't look stupid' is the entire point of the head of state, distributed democratic government is designed to make it impossible to get anything done for the simple reason that if you could, people would use it to rule the country.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Makes sense, doesn't it? We never see presidents do anything, after all... Or never hear about it, rather. Last president managed to subvert pretty much all the constitution, change dozens of critical policies, engage in a full-scale war and pardon a thousand people while he was in office. And it is very well within presidential power to do such things (well, most of them), without approval of the people, or the senate, or anything for that matter.
Which leads me back to my understated point: people don't get to make decisions in what we call democracy today, with or without presidential power, so what does it matter?
I'm surprised Obama's approval rating isn't lower, seeing as how most Republicans actually think Obama caused the economic crash and was responsible for all the bailouts... I'll bet some even think the war in Iraq was his idea too.
<!--quoteo(post=1749289:date=Jan 26 2010, 06:03 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Jan 26 2010, 06:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749289"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Printing currency isn't exactly a bad deal, especially in the age of electronic money. I believe the original point was: it may offered as yet another false hope, another fractional reserve fiat system which will collapse within decades without actually doing anything to pull the economy out of the downward spiral.
Makes sense, doesn't it? We never see presidents do anything, after all... Or never hear about it, rather. Last president managed to subvert pretty much all the constitution, change dozens of critical policies, engage in a full-scale war and pardon a thousand people while he was in office. And it is very well within presidential power to do such things (well, most of them), without approval of the people, or the senate, or anything for that matter.
Which leads me back to my understated point: people don't get to make decisions in what we call democracy today, with or without presidential power, so what does it matter?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Beeecauuuseee in democracy you just get people complaining about things but nothing actually happens. Honestly I don't see mass emigration from america and bodies piling up in the streets and armed military forces shooting protesters, people still live exactly the same lives they always have, because the system of government is detached from the president.
The president can make all sorts of grand declarations but very little actually changes, a few hundred thousand people might die but hundreds of thousands of people die every year in america anyway, it's very hard to determine who would and would not have died if the presidency had been different.
In places that aren't democracies, when the government changes it means mass killings and riots and the building of temples to the grand patriotic leader general whateverhisnameis. The government gets demolished every time the leader changes and people really are oppressed.
In democracies it makes no difference, so you have stability, and safety in numbers, it is quite difficult to get every single person in civil service to go around oppressing people, it's not impossible but it is difficult, it's certainly the best method we have figured out so far.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Printing currency isn't exactly a bad deal, especially in the age of electronic money. I believe the original point was: it may offered as yet another false hope, another fractional reserve fiat system which will collapse within decades without actually doing anything to pull the economy out of the downward spiral.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But it IS a bad deal, particularily if you don't fall within the top 1% of total wealth in the country. This is in reference to printing fiat currency with zero backing whatsoever. At least under fractional reserve banking, you had some built in limits to the amount of money you could print to control inflationary spending sprees by the government.
The U.S. has a foreign owned central bank. They manipulate the money supply and use inflation to enrich the wealthier echelons of our society, while reducing the purchasing power of everyone else. This impacts the middle and lower classes the most, as they tend to buy goods with their notes after its been circulating a while and prices have already risen to compensate for the increased money supply. What makes it worse for them, is that wage increases to compensate for this depreciation of worth usually lag behind for some time. This means everyone, especially in the lower classes, gets poorer. This is why newer generations have to have two incomes just to maintain the same standard of living as the previous generation. Add easy credit to this mix and people start going into debt. It's now becoming hard for the average American to NOT go into debt just to afford the necessities of modern life in this country (a car, food, a decent place to live).
Assume I'm 80 years old, and my whole adult life I've worked hard and socked away all my money in Federal Reserve Notes (FRN). After all those long years of work, I've saved a million dollars, and I'm looking forward to retiring on an island. Unfortunately, I should have reached my 80s in the 1950s, since my savings would have been worth 70-80% MORE than it is today in 2010. Nowadays, a million dollars isn't the obscene amount of money it used to be, and I will have to clearly downgrade my plans to compensate.
Average citizens don't really understand how inflation works, and they just view this process as a normal part of everyday life. You can understand why all the big spenders in Washington LOVE this arrangement, because they don't have to raise their constituents taxes very much to pay for all of these spending binges. The Fed just creates the money with nothing of worth backing it, and buys up these government spending bonds (whatever they may be) and inflation slowly robs the American people blind.
Now, here in 2010, we're nearing the end cycle of this scientific process (hyperinflation, and destruction of the currency), and FINALLY a few people in Congress are waking up (or at least start listening to Ron Paul) and taking notice at the damage being done. Meanwhile, Americans are confused and bewildered at why the economy is collapsing, and blame the superficial political establishment. The real underlying culprit is the design of our monetary system itself, and the process of creating money out of nothing. The icing on the cake is we're all forced to use this increasingly worthless currency through legal tender laws. Not only that, we're also obligated to bailout large banks, and under Obama, large insurance companies and corporations. All of this is paid for with inflation and taxes.
Is it even realistic to still claim that we're a "free" people, when we can't even choose a currency that protects the fruit of our labor? I just wish more Americans understood the basics of how our money works, beyond how to spend it.
<!--quoteo(post=1749350:date=Jan 27 2010, 01:19 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 01:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749350"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Beeecauuuseee in democracy you just get people complaining about things but nothing actually happens. Honestly I don't see mass emigration from america and bodies piling up in the streets and armed military forces shooting protesters, people still live exactly the same lives they always have, because the system of government is detached from the president.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because people presume they have the power over the government while not doing or indeed being able to do anything to exercise it. It's a product of communal ignorance of the matter.
<!--quoteo(post=1749350:date=Jan 27 2010, 01:19 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 01:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749350"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In democracies it makes no difference, so you have stability, and safety in numbers, it is quite difficult to get every single person in civil service to go around oppressing people, it's not impossible but it is difficult, it's certainly the best method we have figured out so far.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If it's the best we can do, we should quite clearly be trying a lot harder, because this just isn't working.
<!--quoteo(post=1749390:date=Jan 27 2010, 10:15 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ Jan 27 2010, 10:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749390"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But it IS a bad deal, particularily if you don't fall within the top 1% of total wealth in the country. This is in reference to printing fiat currency with zero backing whatsoever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What I was trying to say is: it's not hard to pull off for any institution. Printing money isn't that costly in the grand scheme of things: all you're doing is painting bits of paper. Fiat needs no gold, wealth or property to back it up, so there's no starting capital needed.
<!--quoteo(post=1749390:date=Jan 27 2010, 10:15 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ Jan 27 2010, 10:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749390"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At least under fractional reserve banking, you had some built in limits to the amount of money you could print to control inflationary spending sprees by the government.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's the fun part, isn't it? Fractional reserve system says nothing about government spending, it only exists to allow banks to loan out more than they actually have. Government can still print however much they like - like Obama recently did - and, indeed, they have to, to compensate for the owed interest.
<!--quoteo(post=1749390:date=Jan 27 2010, 10:15 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ Jan 27 2010, 10:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749390"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The U.S. has a foreign owned central bank. They manipulate the money supply and use inflation to enrich the wealthier echelons of our society, while reducing the purchasing power of everyone else. This impacts the middle and lower classes the most, as they tend to buy goods with their notes after its been circulating a while and prices have already risen to compensate for the increased money supply. What makes it worse for them, is that wage increases to compensate for this depreciation of worth usually lag behind for some time. This means everyone, especially in the lower classes, gets poorer. This is why newer generations have to have two incomes just to maintain the same standard of living as the previous generation. Add easy credit to this mix and people start going into debt. It's now becoming hard for the average American to NOT go into debt just to afford the necessities of modern life in this country (a car, food, a decent place to live).
Assume I'm 80 years old, and my whole adult life I've worked hard and socked away all my money in Federal Reserve Notes (FRN). After all those long years of work, I've saved a million dollars, and I'm looking forward to retiring on an island. Unfortunately, I should have reached my 80s in the 1950s, since my savings would have been worth 70-80% MORE than it is today in 2010. Nowadays, a million dollars isn't the obscene amount of money it used to be, and I will have to clearly downgrade my plans to compensate.
Average citizens don't really understand how inflation works, and they just view this process as a normal part of everyday life. You can understand why all the big spenders in Washington LOVE this arrangement, because they don't have to raise their constituents taxes very much to pay for all of these spending binges. The Fed just creates the money with nothing of worth backing it, and buys up these government spending bonds (whatever they may be) and inflation slowly robs the American people blind.
Now, here in 2010, we're nearing the end cycle of this scientific process (hyperinflation, and destruction of the currency), and FINALLY a few people in Congress are waking up (or at least start listening to Ron Paul) and taking notice at the damage being done. Meanwhile, Americans are confused and bewildered at why the economy is collapsing, and blame the superficial political establishment. The real underlying culprit is the design of our monetary system itself, and the process of creating money out of nothing. The icing on the cake is we're all forced to use this increasingly worthless currency through legal tender laws. Not only that, we're also obligated to bailout large banks, and under Obama, large insurance companies and corporations. All of this is paid for with inflation and taxes.
Is it even realistic to still claim that we're a "free" people, when we can't even choose a currency that protects the fruit of our labor? I just wish more Americans understood the basics of how our money works, beyond how to spend it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is correct to the tee.
I'd really like to hope the crisis that media and politicians alike are trying their best to ignore makes more people understand this. The system we have now is nothing short of brutal and blatant fraud, there needs be no more than a cursory glance at the matter to comprehend this.
So the only reason people aren't being oppressed by the government is because they don't think they can be?
Jeez I wish more things worked like that, like gravity.
It is working, democratic countries are among the finest on the planet, their citizens enjoy unparalleled liberties for people in such a complex society, sure they're subject to law but law is the foundation of society and will be until we find a way to make everyone just get along. Compared to people throughout history however they have a whole load of freedoms, they have the freedom to not die of cholera, the freedom not to be invaded by the neighbouring city-state, the freedom not to be burned as a witch for being able to read, the freedom to choose a job and a place to live and what they want to spend their money on.
Contrast with undemocractic countries, where people are told where to live, who to associate with, what to think, where to worship, who to vote for, and when they can leave the country.
Rather than the idea that people are only living the same lives because they don't realise the government is oppressing them, consider that the only reason people believe the government is oppressing them is because they have the freedom to be paranoid and the freedom to listen to other people who say the government is oppressing them.
<!--quoteo(post=1749438:date=Jan 27 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 06:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So the only reason people aren't being oppressed by the government is because they don't think they can be?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What?..
<!--quoteo(post=1749438:date=Jan 27 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 06:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is working, democratic countries are among the finest on the planet, their citizens enjoy unparalleled liberties for people in such a complex society, sure they're subject to law but law is the foundation of society and will be until we find a way to make everyone just get along.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's better than tyranny, if that's what you mean, certainly. But that's a bit like saying diabetes is better than bubonic plague: you still wouldn't want either one. You need not fall into the false dichotomy.
<!--quoteo(post=1749438:date=Jan 27 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 06:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Compared to people throughout history however they have a whole load of freedoms, they have the freedom to not die of cholera, the freedom not to be invaded by the neighbouring city-state, the freedom not to be burned as a witch for being able to read, the freedom to choose a job and a place to live and what they want to spend their money on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This has little to do with democracy though, does it? Ancient Greece had democracy, and that didn't do much to provide those freedoms back then...
<!--quoteo(post=1749438:date=Jan 27 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 06:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Contrast with undemocractic countries, where people are told where to live, who to associate with, what to think, where to worship, who to vote for, and when they can leave the country.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure where you live, but that sounds both like my country and the US to the tee. The difference as I see it is in the method of control: dictatorship will spend it's resources on bodyguards, while democracy bets on electing the right officials... One puts a fence around the people, while other makes them into sheep.
I think we may be on different wavelengths here. This has little to do with idealistic notions of democracy we like to associate with and pretend to live in, if that's what you're trying to say: power to the people isn't the worst idea in the world - albeit it is an argument from majority - but that's just not how modern democracies play out. You don't have a say in anything your government does... And that's the whole point, isn't it?
No, the point is that that isn't the main benefit of democracy, the benefit of democracy is that while you have very little say in what the government does, the government can't do anything anyway because it's all over the place and it changes every few years, nobody has any time to get anything done and the entire system appears to be designed to prevent them from doing anything even if they did have time.
The idea of the people running the country is ridiculous, the people aren't qualified to run the country, so what actually happens is that it's a meritocracy, people in the government instituitons get there by being good at doing whatever it is that institution does, the courts, the police, the military, none of that really changes by votes and it also doesn't change much as a result of the desire of the leader, because most things are decided by the house of parliament or congress, the only democratic part is voting for whoever sits in the big chair and gives the speeches, as well as on a very small level where you an elect representatives to sit in congress or parliament but you don't control their policies you just pick one you like.
Democracy is disorganised and distributed and difficult to control, politicians have grand ideas which never work and people vote and it doesn't make any difference, and that's the beauty of it, it's stable, it doesn't change very much, and by and large it's very free, if you live in america you can worship who you like, learn what you like, complain about the government, write a controversial book, start a business, you have a lot of freedom, by and large the state doesn't care what you do as long as you don't do anything very illegal. In a totalitarian state the state controls every action of the people because totalitarian states are efficient and organised and strict because that is how you hold power in a dictatorship. In a democracy you hold power by having a nice smile and looking good in a suit, which means you are probably not as dangerous as someone who took power by leading an armed coup which is the traditional dictatorial mode of succession. Democracies are ruled by idiots and as such they are ruled rather poorly, and also as a result they have become accustomed to being ruled poorly and so most of the actual running of the country is not controlled by anybody much, or by lots of people depending on how you look at it.
<!--quoteo(post=1749465:date=Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749465"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, the point is that that isn't the main benefit of democracy, the benefit of democracy is that while you have very little say in what the government does, the government can't do anything anyway because it's all over the place and it changes every few years, nobody has any time to get anything done and the entire system appears to be designed to prevent them from doing anything even if they did have time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That'd be anarchy... But, of course, in modern democracies, government does what it wants anyway. Or, minding lobbying system, big businesses do what they want, to be more precise. Sometimes there's law or constution to restrict them, but that can always be changed...
<!--quoteo(post=1749465:date=Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749465"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The idea of the people running the country is ridiculous, the people aren't qualified to run the country, so what actually happens is that it's a meritocracy, people in the government instituitons get there by being good at doing whatever it is that institution does<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Makes sense, doesn't it? Of course, if that's how it was, we'd be appointing scientists to the office, not politicians.
<!--quoteo(post=1749465:date=Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749465"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the only democratic part is voting for whoever sits in the big chair and gives the speeches, as well as on a very small level where you an elect representatives to sit in congress or parliament but you don't control their policies you just pick one you like.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not democracy then, is it, though?.. Not rule of the people. It's... Politocracy, so to say. Meritocracy, as you mentioned, replacing merits with popularity, drawing from a very limited pool of people.
<!--quoteo(post=1749465:date=Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749465"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Democracy is disorganised and distributed and difficult to control, politicians have grand ideas which never work and people vote and it doesn't make any difference, and that's the beauty of it, it's stable, it doesn't change very much, and by and large it's very free, if you live in america you can worship who you like, learn what you like, complain about the government, write a controversial book, start a business, you have a lot of freedom, by and large the state doesn't care what you do as long as you don't do anything very illegal. In a totalitarian state the state controls every action of the people because totalitarian states are efficient and organised and strict because that is how you hold power in a dictatorship.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In idealistic notions of each set-up... No. In idealistic socialism, fascism, monarchy, democracy, republic and whatever else - people still get to do what they want, be what they want, and everyone lives happily ever after. It's just that in reality it only really works out for the upper class, whichever one that may be, regardless of regime, purely because the system allows for one to exist.
<!--quoteo(post=1749465:date=Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749465"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In a democracy you hold power by having a nice smile and looking good in a suit, which means you are probably not as dangerous as someone who took power by leading an armed coup which is the traditional dictatorial mode of succession. Democracies are ruled by idiots and as such they are ruled rather poorly, and also as a result they have become accustomed to being ruled poorly and so most of the actual running of the country is not controlled by anybody much, or by lots of people depending on how you look at it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hah. So we agree after all: democracy is a lot better than most other things we've tried over the ages, but it still quite obviously has more holes than swizz cheese nailed to a target range. And that's about all I was trying to say.
But... That's all idealistic. We don't live in an ideal or pure democracy. The system has been hijacked, distorted, and changed over the years, as have been communism, fascism, monarchy and everything else, for better or worse... Just because it still wears the mask doesn't mean it's the same creature underneath.
<b>tl;dr:</b> I think democracy or republic are almost identical to any other regime to the effect of what they actually are today.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1749407:date=Jan 27 2010, 04:36 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Jan 27 2010, 04:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749407"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I was trying to say is: it's not hard to pull off for any institution. Printing money isn't that costly in the grand scheme of things: all you're doing is painting bits of paper. Fiat needs no gold, wealth or property to back it up, so there's no starting capital needed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not really. Let's assume two things that make your position seem more reasonable, but are in no way trivial. Let's say printing a currency that is not easily counterfeited is easy. Let's also say the experts to regulate the supply of such currency are also easy to come by. You still have no chance in hell of making this the fiat currency of one country, let alone all of them. The U.S. exports dollars on the strength of its economy and relatedly the purchasing power of oil. Dollars for oil is and the military enforcement of dollars for oil is why the U.S. dollar is the reserve fiat currency of the world.
My point is that even if the U.S.'s relative decline prevents it from maintaining itself as the world's fiat currency it's highly unlikely anything will have sufficient power to swoop in and take its place. Most likely, there would be no one reserve currency and it would instead be a mix of yen, pounds, euros, dollars, and of course RMB, particularly in the eastern sphere of influence.
<!--quoteo(post=1749509:date=Jan 28 2010, 02:57 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jan 28 2010, 02:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749509"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not really. Let's assume two things that make your position seem more reasonable, but are in no way trivial. Let's say printing a currency that is not easily counterfeited is easy. Let's also say the experts to regulate the supply of such currency are also easy to come by.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I use the word "easy" is a very relative sense. It's certainly not something your average business can undertake, but World Bank/UN/Bill Gates/Whatever have more than enough power to brush it off like chip cookies. Especially minding that 90%+ of modern money supply is in electronic/IOU form.
<!--quoteo(post=1749509:date=Jan 28 2010, 02:57 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jan 28 2010, 02:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749509"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You still have no chance in hell of making this the fiat currency of one country, let alone all of them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yep, that's the hard part. But it requires no resource investment, which is why I didn't take it into account. Resource investment shouldn't be confused with monetary investment: one holds real value, while the other can be printed out of thin air and some jet ink. Like, oh, Obama recently did.
<!--quoteo(post=1749509:date=Jan 28 2010, 02:57 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jan 28 2010, 02:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749509"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The U.S. exports dollars on the strength of its economy and relatedly the purchasing power of oil. Dollars for oil is and the military enforcement of dollars for oil is why the U.S. dollar is the reserve fiat currency of the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is quite true, but it's only a fraction of the reason... Going a bit deeper, the real reason US can do this is because it can continually saturate the world with it's currency through loans, purchases, trade and so on because it can and does print it's money non-stop, both through direct orders and it's banking system (plus it takes huge loans). I believe there's a paradox in economy related to that - don't remember the name - if US did buy oil and gas and whatever with it's currency and allow other countries to keep it, it would simply run out of it's own money. It doesn't because the press is always running, and any new fiat currency can do that no problem as long as people agree to accept it as money.
<!--quoteo(post=1749509:date=Jan 28 2010, 02:57 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jan 28 2010, 02:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749509"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My point is that even if the U.S.'s relative decline prevents it from maintaining itself as the world's fiat currency it's highly unlikely anything will have sufficient power to swoop in and take its place. Most likely, there would be no one reserve currency and it would instead be a mix of yen, pounds, euros, dollars, and of course RMB, particularly in the eastern sphere of influence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I don't see it as sufficiently hard, so I would disagree. The one variable that makes this less likely in my opinion is that many countries are very aware of what exactly a similarly inflated and uncontrolled currency is and what danger it holds, so they might not welcome it with open hands even if it does happen. Then again, the proposed alternative to such things - Euro - have also fallen into the trap of being almost exactly the same.
That is all, of course, a gross oversimplification, but it'll do for a thread on the Internets.
I'm not talking about idealism I'm talking about what things actually are like. Whatever democracy is supposed to be is irrelevant, what it actually manifests as is what I explained. You set out to create a wonderful country ruled by all and for all, but what you get is what we have, which is a nice stable system where people don't get oppressed very much.
I don't know of any other system which decays into something so benign.
<!--quoteo(post=1749574:date=Jan 28 2010, 07:58 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 28 2010, 07:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749574"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not talking about idealism I'm talking about what things actually are like. Whatever democracy is supposed to be is irrelevant, what it actually manifests as is what I explained.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You seemed to wander in and out of this point. I suppose that's because our understanding of current affairs differs.
<!--quoteo(post=1749574:date=Jan 28 2010, 07:58 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 28 2010, 07:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749574"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know of any other system which decays into something so benign.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Republic, federation, commonwealth and even communism. Well, like I said, we probably differ in our outlook on what's actually going on.
In regards to my original post, I would say the lesser of all evils is still "not working", in my humble opinion. In light of any possible alternatives, that is.
Comments
Well, at least US still *has* elections, which is more than I can say for my country.
They won't be able to simply print their way out of this mess this time around either, as the system has exhausted itself as the dollar has been inflated to a point where much of its value is gone, and our debt holders are beginning to demand other forms of repayment. We're looking at currency collapse and hyperinflation within the next 10 years, and its unfortunate that most of the American people will be surprised by this
But, I digress. If Obama did care about his nation, he wouldn't concern himself with war on terror or war on drugs or abortions or gаy marriage or whatever... He'd first stop this ass-backwards scheme of borrowing nation's money from private banks at interest which tax-payers then have to repay. Big issues suddenly don't sound so big when you realise <a href="http://www.chartingstocks.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/cpi.png" target="_blank">US lost 80% of it's wealth in the last 20 years</a> just thanks to that.
Bah. Look at me. I sound like Ron Paul. But, seriously, I don't see how his approval ratings matter. He's still the one making the decisions, not you.
Amero? Yeah, why not. Both present and history abundantly show we're completely unable to stand up to the very few in position of power that rests its fragile neck entirely in our own hands. Of course, the real fun time will be when we realise we've pumped and mined this planet dry of everything we actually need to live, and money doesn't taste quite as good as food.
It's not like it's something too hard to solve either. Money as it exists today has no value other than public's faith in it, and that needs no work or revolution to change.
I do worry about the economic stability if other countries start taking more varied currencies as "fiat" currency. If it wasn't for economic pressure from the U.S. they would do so already. Makes sense to hedge your bets with multiple currencies.
Well, at least US still *has* elections, which is more than I can say for my country.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I understand it 'doesn't look stupid' is the entire point of the head of state, distributed democratic government is designed to make it impossible to get anything done for the simple reason that if you could, people would use it to rule the country.
Electing the head of state to make changes is dictatorship, democratic perhaps but probably not for long, as the first thing any dictator would do is ban elections.
The US and UK heads of state are mostly just there to give speeches, talk to the queen, and maybe go on the 5 pound note in 100 years time. So it helps if they look good in a suit.
Oh and America names aircraft carriers after theirs, so it helps if they don't have silly names as well.
Printing currency isn't exactly a bad deal, especially in the age of electronic money. I believe the original point was: it may offered as yet another false hope, another fractional reserve fiat system which will collapse within decades without actually doing anything to pull the economy out of the downward spiral.
<!--quoteo(post=1749262:date=Jan 26 2010, 06:15 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 26 2010, 06:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749262"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As I understand it 'doesn't look stupid' is the entire point of the head of state, distributed democratic government is designed to make it impossible to get anything done for the simple reason that if you could, people would use it to rule the country.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Makes sense, doesn't it? We never see presidents do anything, after all... Or never hear about it, rather. Last president managed to subvert pretty much all the constitution, change dozens of critical policies, engage in a full-scale war and pardon a thousand people while he was in office. And it is very well within presidential power to do such things (well, most of them), without approval of the people, or the senate, or anything for that matter.
Which leads me back to my understated point: people don't get to make decisions in what we call democracy today, with or without presidential power, so what does it matter?
Makes sense, doesn't it? We never see presidents do anything, after all... Or never hear about it, rather. Last president managed to subvert pretty much all the constitution, change dozens of critical policies, engage in a full-scale war and pardon a thousand people while he was in office. And it is very well within presidential power to do such things (well, most of them), without approval of the people, or the senate, or anything for that matter.
Which leads me back to my understated point: people don't get to make decisions in what we call democracy today, with or without presidential power, so what does it matter?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Beeecauuuseee in democracy you just get people complaining about things but nothing actually happens. Honestly I don't see mass emigration from america and bodies piling up in the streets and armed military forces shooting protesters, people still live exactly the same lives they always have, because the system of government is detached from the president.
The president can make all sorts of grand declarations but very little actually changes, a few hundred thousand people might die but hundreds of thousands of people die every year in america anyway, it's very hard to determine who would and would not have died if the presidency had been different.
In places that aren't democracies, when the government changes it means mass killings and riots and the building of temples to the grand patriotic leader general whateverhisnameis. The government gets demolished every time the leader changes and people really are oppressed.
In democracies it makes no difference, so you have stability, and safety in numbers, it is quite difficult to get every single person in civil service to go around oppressing people, it's not impossible but it is difficult, it's certainly the best method we have figured out so far.
But it IS a bad deal, particularily if you don't fall within the top 1% of total wealth in the country. This is in reference to printing fiat currency with zero backing whatsoever. At least under fractional reserve banking, you had some built in limits to the amount of money you could print to control inflationary spending sprees by the government.
The U.S. has a foreign owned central bank. They manipulate the money supply and use inflation to enrich the wealthier echelons of our society, while reducing the purchasing power of everyone else. This impacts the middle and lower classes the most, as they tend to buy goods with their notes after its been circulating a while and prices have already risen to compensate for the increased money supply. What makes it worse for them, is that wage increases to compensate for this depreciation of worth usually lag behind for some time. This means everyone, especially in the lower classes, gets poorer. This is why newer generations have to have two incomes just to maintain the same standard of living as the previous generation. Add easy credit to this mix and people start going into debt. It's now becoming hard for the average American to NOT go into debt just to afford the necessities of modern life in this country (a car, food, a decent place to live).
Assume I'm 80 years old, and my whole adult life I've worked hard and socked away all my money in Federal Reserve Notes (FRN). After all those long years of work, I've saved a million dollars, and I'm looking forward to retiring on an island. Unfortunately, I should have reached my 80s in the 1950s, since my savings would have been worth 70-80% MORE than it is today in 2010. Nowadays, a million dollars isn't the obscene amount of money it used to be, and I will have to clearly downgrade my plans to compensate.
Average citizens don't really understand how inflation works, and they just view this process as a normal part of everyday life. You can understand why all the big spenders in Washington LOVE this arrangement, because they don't have to raise their constituents taxes very much to pay for all of these spending binges. The Fed just creates the money with nothing of worth backing it, and buys up these government spending bonds (whatever they may be) and inflation slowly robs the American people blind.
Now, here in 2010, we're nearing the end cycle of this scientific process (hyperinflation, and destruction of the currency), and FINALLY a few people in Congress are waking up (or at least start listening to Ron Paul) and taking notice at the damage being done. Meanwhile, Americans are confused and bewildered at why the economy is collapsing, and blame the superficial political establishment. The real underlying culprit is the design of our monetary system itself, and the process of creating money out of nothing. The icing on the cake is we're all forced to use this increasingly worthless currency through legal tender laws. Not only that, we're also obligated to bailout large banks, and under Obama, large insurance companies and corporations. All of this is paid for with inflation and taxes.
Is it even realistic to still claim that we're a "free" people, when we can't even choose a currency that protects the fruit of our labor? I just wish more Americans understood the basics of how our money works, beyond how to spend it.
Because people presume they have the power over the government while not doing or indeed being able to do anything to exercise it. It's a product of communal ignorance of the matter.
<!--quoteo(post=1749350:date=Jan 27 2010, 01:19 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 01:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749350"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In democracies it makes no difference, so you have stability, and safety in numbers, it is quite difficult to get every single person in civil service to go around oppressing people, it's not impossible but it is difficult, it's certainly the best method we have figured out so far.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it's the best we can do, we should quite clearly be trying a lot harder, because this just isn't working.
<!--quoteo(post=1749390:date=Jan 27 2010, 10:15 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ Jan 27 2010, 10:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749390"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But it IS a bad deal, particularily if you don't fall within the top 1% of total wealth in the country. This is in reference to printing fiat currency with zero backing whatsoever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I was trying to say is: it's not hard to pull off for any institution. Printing money isn't that costly in the grand scheme of things: all you're doing is painting bits of paper. Fiat needs no gold, wealth or property to back it up, so there's no starting capital needed.
<!--quoteo(post=1749390:date=Jan 27 2010, 10:15 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ Jan 27 2010, 10:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749390"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At least under fractional reserve banking, you had some built in limits to the amount of money you could print to control inflationary spending sprees by the government.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the fun part, isn't it? Fractional reserve system says nothing about government spending, it only exists to allow banks to loan out more than they actually have. Government can still print however much they like - like Obama recently did - and, indeed, they have to, to compensate for the owed interest.
<!--quoteo(post=1749390:date=Jan 27 2010, 10:15 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ Jan 27 2010, 10:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749390"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The U.S. has a foreign owned central bank. They manipulate the money supply and use inflation to enrich the wealthier echelons of our society, while reducing the purchasing power of everyone else. This impacts the middle and lower classes the most, as they tend to buy goods with their notes after its been circulating a while and prices have already risen to compensate for the increased money supply. What makes it worse for them, is that wage increases to compensate for this depreciation of worth usually lag behind for some time. This means everyone, especially in the lower classes, gets poorer. This is why newer generations have to have two incomes just to maintain the same standard of living as the previous generation. Add easy credit to this mix and people start going into debt. It's now becoming hard for the average American to NOT go into debt just to afford the necessities of modern life in this country (a car, food, a decent place to live).
Assume I'm 80 years old, and my whole adult life I've worked hard and socked away all my money in Federal Reserve Notes (FRN). After all those long years of work, I've saved a million dollars, and I'm looking forward to retiring on an island. Unfortunately, I should have reached my 80s in the 1950s, since my savings would have been worth 70-80% MORE than it is today in 2010. Nowadays, a million dollars isn't the obscene amount of money it used to be, and I will have to clearly downgrade my plans to compensate.
Average citizens don't really understand how inflation works, and they just view this process as a normal part of everyday life. You can understand why all the big spenders in Washington LOVE this arrangement, because they don't have to raise their constituents taxes very much to pay for all of these spending binges. The Fed just creates the money with nothing of worth backing it, and buys up these government spending bonds (whatever they may be) and inflation slowly robs the American people blind.
Now, here in 2010, we're nearing the end cycle of this scientific process (hyperinflation, and destruction of the currency), and FINALLY a few people in Congress are waking up (or at least start listening to Ron Paul) and taking notice at the damage being done. Meanwhile, Americans are confused and bewildered at why the economy is collapsing, and blame the superficial political establishment. The real underlying culprit is the design of our monetary system itself, and the process of creating money out of nothing. The icing on the cake is we're all forced to use this increasingly worthless currency through legal tender laws. Not only that, we're also obligated to bailout large banks, and under Obama, large insurance companies and corporations. All of this is paid for with inflation and taxes.
Is it even realistic to still claim that we're a "free" people, when we can't even choose a currency that protects the fruit of our labor? I just wish more Americans understood the basics of how our money works, beyond how to spend it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is correct to the tee.
I'd really like to hope the crisis that media and politicians alike are trying their best to ignore makes more people understand this. The system we have now is nothing short of brutal and blatant fraud, there needs be no more than a cursory glance at the matter to comprehend this.
Jeez I wish more things worked like that, like gravity.
It is working, democratic countries are among the finest on the planet, their citizens enjoy unparalleled liberties for people in such a complex society, sure they're subject to law but law is the foundation of society and will be until we find a way to make everyone just get along. Compared to people throughout history however they have a whole load of freedoms, they have the freedom to not die of cholera, the freedom not to be invaded by the neighbouring city-state, the freedom not to be burned as a witch for being able to read, the freedom to choose a job and a place to live and what they want to spend their money on.
Contrast with undemocractic countries, where people are told where to live, who to associate with, what to think, where to worship, who to vote for, and when they can leave the country.
Rather than the idea that people are only living the same lives because they don't realise the government is oppressing them, consider that the only reason people believe the government is oppressing them is because they have the freedom to be paranoid and the freedom to listen to other people who say the government is oppressing them.
What?..
<!--quoteo(post=1749438:date=Jan 27 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 06:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is working, democratic countries are among the finest on the planet, their citizens enjoy unparalleled liberties for people in such a complex society, sure they're subject to law but law is the foundation of society and will be until we find a way to make everyone just get along.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's better than tyranny, if that's what you mean, certainly. But that's a bit like saying diabetes is better than bubonic plague: you still wouldn't want either one. You need not fall into the false dichotomy.
<!--quoteo(post=1749438:date=Jan 27 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 06:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Compared to people throughout history however they have a whole load of freedoms, they have the freedom to not die of cholera, the freedom not to be invaded by the neighbouring city-state, the freedom not to be burned as a witch for being able to read, the freedom to choose a job and a place to live and what they want to spend their money on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has little to do with democracy though, does it? Ancient Greece had democracy, and that didn't do much to provide those freedoms back then...
<!--quoteo(post=1749438:date=Jan 27 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 06:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Contrast with undemocractic countries, where people are told where to live, who to associate with, what to think, where to worship, who to vote for, and when they can leave the country.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure where you live, but that sounds both like my country and the US to the tee. The difference as I see it is in the method of control: dictatorship will spend it's resources on bodyguards, while democracy bets on electing the right officials... One puts a fence around the people, while other makes them into sheep.
I think we may be on different wavelengths here. This has little to do with idealistic notions of democracy we like to associate with and pretend to live in, if that's what you're trying to say: power to the people isn't the worst idea in the world - albeit it is an argument from majority - but that's just not how modern democracies play out. You don't have a say in anything your government does... And that's the whole point, isn't it?
The idea of the people running the country is ridiculous, the people aren't qualified to run the country, so what actually happens is that it's a meritocracy, people in the government instituitons get there by being good at doing whatever it is that institution does, the courts, the police, the military, none of that really changes by votes and it also doesn't change much as a result of the desire of the leader, because most things are decided by the house of parliament or congress, the only democratic part is voting for whoever sits in the big chair and gives the speeches, as well as on a very small level where you an elect representatives to sit in congress or parliament but you don't control their policies you just pick one you like.
Democracy is disorganised and distributed and difficult to control, politicians have grand ideas which never work and people vote and it doesn't make any difference, and that's the beauty of it, it's stable, it doesn't change very much, and by and large it's very free, if you live in america you can worship who you like, learn what you like, complain about the government, write a controversial book, start a business, you have a lot of freedom, by and large the state doesn't care what you do as long as you don't do anything very illegal. In a totalitarian state the state controls every action of the people because totalitarian states are efficient and organised and strict because that is how you hold power in a dictatorship. In a democracy you hold power by having a nice smile and looking good in a suit, which means you are probably not as dangerous as someone who took power by leading an armed coup which is the traditional dictatorial mode of succession. Democracies are ruled by idiots and as such they are ruled rather poorly, and also as a result they have become accustomed to being ruled poorly and so most of the actual running of the country is not controlled by anybody much, or by lots of people depending on how you look at it.
That'd be anarchy... But, of course, in modern democracies, government does what it wants anyway. Or, minding lobbying system, big businesses do what they want, to be more precise. Sometimes there's law or constution to restrict them, but that can always be changed...
<!--quoteo(post=1749465:date=Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749465"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The idea of the people running the country is ridiculous, the people aren't qualified to run the country, so what actually happens is that it's a meritocracy, people in the government instituitons get there by being good at doing whatever it is that institution does<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Makes sense, doesn't it? Of course, if that's how it was, we'd be appointing scientists to the office, not politicians.
<!--quoteo(post=1749465:date=Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749465"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the only democratic part is voting for whoever sits in the big chair and gives the speeches, as well as on a very small level where you an elect representatives to sit in congress or parliament but you don't control their policies you just pick one you like.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not democracy then, is it, though?.. Not rule of the people. It's... Politocracy, so to say. Meritocracy, as you mentioned, replacing merits with popularity, drawing from a very limited pool of people.
<!--quoteo(post=1749465:date=Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749465"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Democracy is disorganised and distributed and difficult to control, politicians have grand ideas which never work and people vote and it doesn't make any difference, and that's the beauty of it, it's stable, it doesn't change very much, and by and large it's very free, if you live in america you can worship who you like, learn what you like, complain about the government, write a controversial book, start a business, you have a lot of freedom, by and large the state doesn't care what you do as long as you don't do anything very illegal. In a totalitarian state the state controls every action of the people because totalitarian states are efficient and organised and strict because that is how you hold power in a dictatorship.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In idealistic notions of each set-up... No. In idealistic socialism, fascism, monarchy, democracy, republic and whatever else - people still get to do what they want, be what they want, and everyone lives happily ever after. It's just that in reality it only really works out for the upper class, whichever one that may be, regardless of regime, purely because the system allows for one to exist.
<!--quoteo(post=1749465:date=Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 27 2010, 09:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749465"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In a democracy you hold power by having a nice smile and looking good in a suit, which means you are probably not as dangerous as someone who took power by leading an armed coup which is the traditional dictatorial mode of succession. Democracies are ruled by idiots and as such they are ruled rather poorly, and also as a result they have become accustomed to being ruled poorly and so most of the actual running of the country is not controlled by anybody much, or by lots of people depending on how you look at it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hah. So we agree after all: democracy is a lot better than most other things we've tried over the ages, but it still quite obviously has more holes than swizz cheese nailed to a target range. And that's about all I was trying to say.
But... That's all idealistic. We don't live in an ideal or pure democracy. The system has been hijacked, distorted, and changed over the years, as have been communism, fascism, monarchy and everything else, for better or worse... Just because it still wears the mask doesn't mean it's the same creature underneath.
<b>tl;dr:</b> I think democracy or republic are almost identical to any other regime to the effect of what they actually are today.
Not really. Let's assume two things that make your position seem more reasonable, but are in no way trivial. Let's say printing a currency that is not easily counterfeited is easy. Let's also say the experts to regulate the supply of such currency are also easy to come by. You still have no chance in hell of making this the fiat currency of one country, let alone all of them. The U.S. exports dollars on the strength of its economy and relatedly the purchasing power of oil. Dollars for oil is and the military enforcement of dollars for oil is why the U.S. dollar is the reserve fiat currency of the world.
My point is that even if the U.S.'s relative decline prevents it from maintaining itself as the world's fiat currency it's highly unlikely anything will have sufficient power to swoop in and take its place. Most likely, there would be no one reserve currency and it would instead be a mix of yen, pounds, euros, dollars, and of course RMB, particularly in the eastern sphere of influence.
Well, I use the word "easy" is a very relative sense. It's certainly not something your average business can undertake, but World Bank/UN/Bill Gates/Whatever have more than enough power to brush it off like chip cookies. Especially minding that 90%+ of modern money supply is in electronic/IOU form.
<!--quoteo(post=1749509:date=Jan 28 2010, 02:57 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jan 28 2010, 02:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749509"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You still have no chance in hell of making this the fiat currency of one country, let alone all of them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, that's the hard part. But it requires no resource investment, which is why I didn't take it into account. Resource investment shouldn't be confused with monetary investment: one holds real value, while the other can be printed out of thin air and some jet ink. Like, oh, Obama recently did.
<!--quoteo(post=1749509:date=Jan 28 2010, 02:57 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jan 28 2010, 02:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749509"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The U.S. exports dollars on the strength of its economy and relatedly the purchasing power of oil. Dollars for oil is and the military enforcement of dollars for oil is why the U.S. dollar is the reserve fiat currency of the world.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is quite true, but it's only a fraction of the reason... Going a bit deeper, the real reason US can do this is because it can continually saturate the world with it's currency through loans, purchases, trade and so on because it can and does print it's money non-stop, both through direct orders and it's banking system (plus it takes huge loans). I believe there's a paradox in economy related to that - don't remember the name - if US did buy oil and gas and whatever with it's currency and allow other countries to keep it, it would simply run out of it's own money. It doesn't because the press is always running, and any new fiat currency can do that no problem as long as people agree to accept it as money.
<!--quoteo(post=1749509:date=Jan 28 2010, 02:57 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jan 28 2010, 02:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749509"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My point is that even if the U.S.'s relative decline prevents it from maintaining itself as the world's fiat currency it's highly unlikely anything will have sufficient power to swoop in and take its place. Most likely, there would be no one reserve currency and it would instead be a mix of yen, pounds, euros, dollars, and of course RMB, particularly in the eastern sphere of influence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I don't see it as sufficiently hard, so I would disagree. The one variable that makes this less likely in my opinion is that many countries are very aware of what exactly a similarly inflated and uncontrolled currency is and what danger it holds, so they might not welcome it with open hands even if it does happen. Then again, the proposed alternative to such things - Euro - have also fallen into the trap of being almost exactly the same.
That is all, of course, a gross oversimplification, but it'll do for a thread on the Internets.
I don't know of any other system which decays into something so benign.
You seemed to wander in and out of this point. I suppose that's because our understanding of current affairs differs.
<!--quoteo(post=1749574:date=Jan 28 2010, 07:58 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 28 2010, 07:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749574"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know of any other system which decays into something so benign.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Republic, federation, commonwealth and even communism. Well, like I said, we probably differ in our outlook on what's actually going on.
In regards to my original post, I would say the lesser of all evils is still "not working", in my humble opinion. In light of any possible alternatives, that is.