american lit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Ahem, how many have you seen? I live here and I've only met one in person. How many times have you been here and seen one? And frankly what does that have to do with anything? I'm talking economics not politics.

---

Do I really need to see them? Economics is not about seeing people, commentaries by people are much more instructive about it than a sight of them... And how can you not realize that economical ideology goes though politics? Do you think politics and economy are two separate animals? they're siamese twins at best.

Quote:

---

None of your counties are socialist. Obviously there is a reason for that.

---

And was it the same reason for half the world being communist a few years ago? This is just base rhetoric. If everyone jumped off a bridge, then there would probably be a good reason for it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Do I really need to see them? Economics is not about seeing people, commentaries by people are much more instructive about it than a sight of them... And how can you not realize that economical ideology goes though politics? Do you think politics and economy are two separate animals? they're siamese twins at best.

---

No they are not. What any politican says in a campaign is absolutely meaningless. And how can you measure anyone from a 20 second news clip. You're not even in this country to see all the news. Are you saying you see more news of Americans than Americans? I find it completely odd that people from outside the US think they know more about the US than Americans. Very odd.

Quote:

---

And was it the same reason for half the world being communist a few years ago? This is just base rhetoric. If everyone jumped off a bridge, then there would probably be a good reason for it?

---

There are currently ten coutries world wide that claim to be socialist, and one of them is China that is moving away from socialism as fast as it can. Perhaps the economic consensus is wrong, but that's the economic consensus today of goverments that are on the right and on the left.

Capitalism grants an economic crash every 40 years, with a promise of it bouncing back and a promise of the money the corporations have trickling down to us. So what if I'm seventeen? I make income, I hold a job.

Countries don't fall into one category or another so easy. For instance, Canada traditionally has had a rather central economy. We have 4 political parties, with a minority government, each with its own platform. By the American standard, 3/4 of our parties are "left leaning", with one being pushing towards the center, whereas by the European standard the leftest party is just a little left of the center, whereas the rest are central, or towards the right.

But lets get beyond that. You guys have income tax, you guys have just planned a stimulus package greater than half of our economies annual GDP. You guys take money out of your economy and into your governments. How Capitalist is that? Or perhaps the American government isn't the best budgeter?

American capitalism is capitalism for suckers by my reckoning. Perhaps in the beginning it was true capitalism, but it hasn't been since the New Plan in the depression. It is a Keynesian economy, that in recent years has headed to a more right wing stance, but has none-the-less kept up its taxation.

Let's get beyond this nonsense. I don't come to lit net to talk about economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

No they are not. What any politican says in a campaign is absolutely meaningless. And how can you measure anyone from a 20 second news clip.

---

I don't watch clips, I prefer to read, what politicians say, and what analysts say. Although for the last year I haven't been following it half as much...

Quote:

---

You're not even in this country to see all the news. Are you saying you see more news of Americans than Americans?

---

Well, believe me, we have plenty of news from America here, and I like to think that I'm better informed that the average American. And being informed is not only about interior politics, but also of the general picture of the world, as, as astonishing as it might sound, America is in the world.

Quote:

---

I find it completely odd that people from outside the US think they know more about the US than Americans. Very odd.

---

First, I don't see anything wrong about the notion that someone from outside the USA can know more than the majority of Americans (American could be here replaced by many other nations or concepts). Secondly, I have not argued that I know more than American, and your so-called superior knowledge that you've been pushing sophistically since the beginning has been nothing else than that - sophisms, and poor ones too. Did you have any economic classes? You're ignorant! I know better! How can you think you know better than Americans?, etc. A bit of substance please.

Quote:

---

There are currently ten coutries world wide that claim to be socialist, and one of them is China that is moving away from socialism as fast as it can. Perhaps the economic consensus is wrong, but that's the economic consensus today of goverments that are on the right and on the left.

---

Yes, so? You just repeated what I previously said was nonsense as an argument. Do I need to repeat it again, so you can repeat it again, etc.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Let's get beyond this nonsense. I don't come to lit net to talk about economics.

---

As you wish, but you've been repeating this, but continued to argue at the same time, it's one or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Keynes replaced Smith, and in the American view Freedman seems to have replaced Keynes. Who is to say that someone won't come along and replace Freedman in the American view?

---

JBI, that's the most accurate and insightful thing I've ever seen you write regarding America. That comment is well informed and intelligently expressed. Normally, you just spout anti-American propaganda, but that was excellently put. I have just one correction to make. The man's name is spelled Milton Friedman, with an i. He is an exceptionally bright gentleman, but his theories are not without their own flaws. I've been able to spot a few errors in the things he says without being a professional economist. For instance, his stance in support of school vouchers illustrates either an ignorance of educational practices or an ideological blindness to the facts. Either way, we've had Friedman for several decades now and it's time for him to be updated.

Forgive my lack of familiarity with Canadian politics, but hasn't your soon to be ex-Prime Minister Stephen Harper said similar things (to what is said in the States) about the Liberal Party and the secessionists having strong socialist/communist tendencies? What I heard, or thought I heard from him, was strongly negative in that regard. From what I can tell, Canada's largest party is the Conservative Party which shares a number of platform issues with our own Republican Party in the United States. I'm hesitant to speak without a surer grasp of your political history, but I'm confident that most of the evils and abuses you attribute to my country are the fraternal twins of your own. Also, any outliers or dissimilarities could possibly be attributed more to a lack of opportunity than a difference of national character. You yourself seem to be a proud liberal socialist, but I wonder how indicative you are of the general population. Does your experience generalize, or are you exceptional? I have the feeling, just a feeling, that there are some very patriotic Canadians for whom capitalism is a revered totem and liberal is still a dirty word.

Well, the conservative party as we know it now, is a rather recent addition to the political scene (the previous conservative party was different, the current one is mostly formed with the most conservative basis of the first one). Now the main party has been for years the Liberal party, but they've been going through some troubles and scandals recently which led to huge losses in popularity (coupled with a current leader that is not very popular). Notice that the political ideology spectrum in Canada shifts a lot from west to east. West is more conservative, going more and more liberal to the east, and Quebec generally voting firstly Bloc Quebecois and then Liberals. Quebec is generally more to the left than the rest of Canada too but slowly getting back to the "Canadian center", which is something like Ontario. You could say that there's Ontario which is center (the Canadian average, in a way), the to it's left it's right, and to it's right it's left hehe.

The rhetoric that has been tossed around in Parliament this past week is actually regarded by academics covering it as showing the influence of American culture and media on the Canadian public. The current prime minister's arguments actually fit closer with American politics, which by means of having the same television networks more or less, Canadians are exposed to at such a high amount. So when he says "You didn't elect this guy to be prime minister" people don't realize that Canadians don't actually elect Prime ministers, but elect regional candidates, as is common with Westminster Parliamentary Systems. But of course, as conflict theory goes, The Right Wing party has more money, and reaches wider audiences, and has the power of big business backing them. As a result, we get a large amount of coverage and advertisement exposure to the bull****, and it transfers out into an altering of the perceptions of the uneducated, or of the greedy, who take this opportunity as a way to preach Agenda.

And what it really comes down it, is an anti-left sentiment, and a very typical anti-French sentiment, which usually attaches itself to these sorts of governments, since confederation (I think if one would accuse John A. MacDonald of being an Anglocentrist, one wouldn't be too far off).

But what it really comes down to is the effect of American political exposure reeducating a population which didn't have the proper exposure to the nature of Canadian politics to begin with (I think more towards the higher age brackets), and seem to not know history.

Either way though, the whole coalition crisis as it is beginning to be called is over, as the governor General acted rather controversially, and prorogued government for two months.

Though I would agree with Etienne's diagram of the political spectrum, though historically Manitoba and Saskatchewan were more left than they seem today. Alberta though, I consider to be the Texas of Canada (take that however you want). And French Canada has been more left leaning, though provincially they have elected for two majority government terms, and are projected to re-elect a more central government.

The history of Canada though makes politics rather strange to someone who doesn't really know it - especially the politics of Quebec. Recent politics are also obscured by the American influences that have seeped into our culture, and into our government, by means of free-trade and television broadcasting.

oops! this has gone waay off topic, and some people forgot that discussion of current politricks is not allowed :)