JustinW

I believe it was directed toward the whole thread, and touched on a few key points that we have all made about our current economic system. For the topics subject I remain with the belief that you cannot accurately test a free market economic model due to the fact of government intervention and policy making. I also believe, as I've said before, that the closer a free market stays to being a free market the more stable it will be. It will have its ups and downs, lulls and gains, but won't be as severe as when an authoratative body intervenes to manipulate it in a certain direction. As for how to test an economic model before implementing one. . . . I think that would strictly be about educated guessing. Testing one after its implemented could be argued, like Vent mentioned above about our current free market model, that it's no longer a true free market because of such influences instituted upon that model. How come a video of C-SPAN on U-tube is not an accurate form of information from me but is fine for you. The reason I chose to use cspan was because it had the government officials speaking of there involvement of the situation at the time of the situation. It shows that government was involved at the time. And when you think about the big picture of the situation the government had to be involved and promises made for a company to act in such a way in the first place. If you were running a company would you have acted in such a way without some promise of financial backing or something to keep your companies head above water once things turned sour? It doesn't make sense for a company to make such a blatantly unsound decision. Especially from a financial firm that has been at the top of the game for decades. Why would they just one day decide that they were going to start providing loans that were unsustainable. Is this the normal business practice for private business? That is why I think there was more government involvement than you would make out for me to believe.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=McCain+vs+Barney+Franks+on+fannie+and+freddie&mid=3343C6A18A54CE0D1A3A3343C6A18A54CE0D1A3A&view=detail&FORM=VIRE8 http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-90601 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae I've got links too. I wonder why cspan is considered a propoganda machine? It's the first I've heard. In truth you can smell government filth all over this thing from start to finish. I don't see why you don't agree that government involvement was a key factor in that failure. When there is intervention by government to manipulate a free market economy it has a negative affect because the model was never meant to have that kind of intervention. It can only work negatively because it presents an unbalance in the system that is unsustainable and plants the seed for failure. Maybe it was the general message that was coming across to me. You may not have said it exactly and if that wasn't your stance, then I appoligize for my assumption. I believe it was the comments on equality and your defense of a government intervention to keep a company from failing that made me assume such was the case. And yes I agree with my reading comprehention skills. I like to excersize them daily.

I think I understand a little better now. I think it was the word rights that were throwing me off. Said like this it makes more sense. And you really illustrated some fundamental differences between cultures. I think that on a religious and traditional point of view that a certain amount of prejudice towards western society may be understandable. It seems like that would be a perfectly understandable feeling to have under that sort of premis. Where as here in the west people think mostly of personal freedoms that cause a disconnect from a family orientation. Some food for thought. Why not both? The topic was pretty general so the conversation could go anywhere on this subject. I think ewmon layed out a pretty good reason to think about accepting an eastern way of family orientation from a westerners stand point. But I bet someone could just as easily make a case in the opposite direction. I think I posted this topic more on a basis of understanding fundamental differences and what people thought of those differences, rather than which society is wrong or right, better or worse. Tell me what you think.

How many recessions, or the depression for that matter, were not the caused in large part by government manipulation of an area that had a direct effect on the economy? As with our latest recession begining with the manipulation of the housing market. I thought it was pretty clear that it was Barney Franks and Chris Dodd that were behind the government subsidising housing loans through Fanny and Freddie. What did they think was going to happen when you let a person with a 40k dollar a year job buy a 200k-250k dollar home? Giving loans that you know for a fact that no one can pay is one damn fine way to bust a bank in my OPINION. All because of a belief that everyone is entitled to own their own home. Unfounded opinions? You haven't given a shred of logic to prove that these are unfounded or unfactual. Wrong again. (see i can do it too) Though I'm not an economist I still have a basic understanding of what economies are and what the ups and downs are caused by. The links you wanted to prove my point wrong with are not what my comment was about. I said you haven't studied an economy that had no manipulations or intervention, and that with the free market platform would in theory be more stable without such interventions. I feel so much better now. We can all just get together and sing koombaya in the streets while holding hands! Unrelated to freedom? Are you kidding me? Why don't we just get a tattoo of a number on our forhead when we're born telling us what job we're going to have and what we're going to learn for the rest of our lives. Or why don't we make ourselves like russia used to be a while back and designate certain stores we can shop at, if we still have any money at that time, or if the store even has anything on the shelves by then. Freedom of choice has a whole lot to do with the strength of an economy than you make out. You make it seem as though it has little to do with it, if not totally unrelated. That is not the case at all. And you speak of equality. We're back to koombaya again. What does equality have to do with a free market? This is where government gets involved and makes mistakes. It is our want that no one fails, and I admit it goes against the grain to see someone fail, but everyone has the opportunity to rise or fall. The option is there for you. Why do you feel the government has to step in to keep someone from failing when what normally happens is an intervention that has a negative affect on the economy as a whole. You trying to save a fraction by hurting the majority. Where is that right?

Are you really shocked that Jesus supported the Old Testament Moontanman? Have you forgotten that He was a Jew? Also what makes you think that slaves were thought of to be morally wrong in those times. As far as I know the question of morallity when it came to slavery only came into play in the last several hundred years. Unless there was a debate about it before then that I have missed. Science can provide the answer to the reason we are here? I'm not so sure. Science may provide an answer as to how we have come to be here, but I don't think it will tell us WHY we are here. That is a question that is left to a creator. If there is no creator then the simple answer would be that there isn't a reason or meaning to our existance.

Sorry, that was poorly worded. I meant because of these differences, two different societies may think about an ethical question differently. Because the two may look at an ethical question in different lights, is it fair to judge them harshly for it? Or does there need to be a certain amount of understanding and leaveway when such arguments arise? For those that judge a matter at face value and express a certain amount of prejudice towards a whole society or group of people, are they somewhat justified in expressing that prejudice? Even though the matter may be a difference in experiences that cause the two to differ in opinion? I don't know....I probably should have thought this topic out more before I posted it. It's hard for me to find the right words to express the way I'm thinking about it.

I didn't say that the failure of GM wouldn't have had a negative impact, but your comments are under the assumption that the market wouldn't correct itself without intervention. Just because GM would have had to lay off its people doesn't mean that another avenue wouldn't have opened up for its former employees. The vendures also would have been able to adjust in time. It is just as simple as "let it ride". It's just that nobody wants to see people fall on hard times if they can help it. It is usually these interventions that cause the most trouble. You might turn around and say those people would have had trouble finding other employment elsewhere do to the recession. And I would have to say that we were only in a recession of that magnitude because of government intervention in the first place. No one wants to neglect to do something because there is only a chance that the market will correct itself, and no one wants to risk the failure of people on a chance that it will. The market does these kinds of corrections on a smaller level everyday. Why is it so hard to believe that it will do it on a larger level. Doors close while others open. This economic model will work on a more stable level, in theory, if there wasn't so many who feel the need to manipulate it under the assumption that it will fail without there intervention. You say that a free market economic model doesn't, but have you ever had the opportunity to study one that wasn't being altered by some kind of manipulation? You say that a free market economy has ultimately hurt the populace, but have you considered that it was instituted to allow people there freedom and not necessarily provide protection from failure? Everyone has there struggles in life and I don't think it is up to an economic model to provide that sort of protection. In a free market I believe it should ultimately be up to the individual to make correct and sound decisions to prevent there own failure. How far are we willing to go to protect people from themselves?How far should we let the government go to chose the winners and losers in private business?

I believe the exact opposite. If the government would leave it alone instead of trying to control it to pick the winners and losers, I think it would be more stable. There would still be winners and losers, but the consumers themselves would cause that effect. The winners and losers should be based on the product they make or service they provide in corrulation with the need or popularity of those products and services. But what is happening is the government is bailing companies out, putting programs and policies in place that are monetarily unsustainable, and inflaiting the market on a whim. It's like the US postal service. You have to ask yourself why it is failing while private companies prosper. And in the real world GM would have failed and another company would have taken it's place. Inflating the housing market. There is a multitude of other examples that can be named of manipulating the market in a way that doesn't jive with the idea of a free market. I say leave it alone and let it ride. The government has to be involved to a certain extent and that is understandable. But the level of involvement doesn't have to be as substantial as it has been.

I wasn't really referring to race. I was leaning more towards American vs European, or American vs Middle Eastern, or something to that affect. I didn't want to get too specific because the question in my mind wasn't a specific one. That is why I used a massive generallity, which has been pointed out to me before as being a hinder to logical conversation. But it is what it is I guess. I don't think we agree on the rights issue. Hair color or the feeling that "We are all the same" doesn't differentiate how individual rights are different than collective. Where I'm from they are both the same. I haven't heard about being different in any other countries. If it is I would like to hear some examples. The topic was more about how societies are different around the world and if a certain amount of prejudice is ethically justifiable because of those differences.

I don't know if the balance you're talking about is the balance that I imagine applies. The way I've thought about it is that it's not a model that remains stable and balanced but rather a model that institutes the most freedom. That being based on the assumption that no one institutes ideologies that work to counter the process or establish control measures to manipulate the market. The generic model of the free market economy has its ups and downs, bubbles and recessions, but without manipulation remains the free-est model. It is when the market is manipulated that we have our worst reprecussions.

Like I've said before, it's not a perfect vacuum in outer space. It's just the closest there is in nature. And how is it constant? What would feed a vacuum except an expansion that removes matter from space? This is what I'm trying to find out. If our vacuum is getting stronger or weaker it should give us a hint as to what the universe is doing as a whole. This is a conundrum. Nothing expands inward. To go in would be to contract. And just because your theory is new to me, also doesn't make you right. You state everything without a shred of evidence to support you other than laws of physics that apply to gravity. You have said yourself that we are expanding in the observable field of view. But you also say we are falling in the bigger picture. How do you know? You are just guessing as far as I can tell, and basing your assumption on what a snowball does on earth because of gravity. Show me some real evidence of where you draw your conclusions. Give me something more tangible than analogies of what objects do on earth because of gravity. Not all galaxies are spiralled. And I don't think I've heard anybody say that the black hole at the center of the milkyway is just sittin out there chillin. As a matter of fact some stars orbit around that blackhole in a matter of minutes, travelling at millions of miles per hour.

How long before ideologies creep in? That is the problem with testing an economic theory. It takes time, and during that time there is no way to keep out ideologies that affect that economic model in a way that does support the models intent. Just like the free market model that the US uses currently. If you look at the greek model for free market economics that the US economy was built upon, it wasn't meant to support subsidies and intitlements that are ever inflated and vertually unsustainable.

So what I said earlier about there being a curve when graphing the time duration the closer to the speed of light, is that right or wrong? The time duration of lights travel shown on a graph should get lower the closer the object gets to moving away at the SOL.

No problem, " I'm here all week".

So you're saying that at a fundamental level people in the world are not much different from eachother? I think I can see your point there, but the differences from experience can be on a level throughout a region. Is it possible that the differences, brought by experiences, make us feel differently about certain ethical subjects? The reason I ask is that I've recently heard someone say that westerners were callus when it comes to death. I thought about the brutallity of others around the world at first before realizing that the person probably meant the thought of death and not the act. If he was right, I wondered why. (not that I necessarily think he's right) But I wondered if it had anything to do with experience of westerners as whole. One way we could differ more than European countries is the way our population is spread out. We generally have more rural areas. Wich means more hunting. At least in my own personal experience. Everyone I grew up around, we all grew up killing things since we were little. I wondered if maybe that is one of the reasons why our nation might come across as callus towards death. Just a thought. Well spoken Immortal. I also believe this is the way it should be, and also believe the majority of the world believes this also.

When you think about it, it should curve when time is conserned. If a galaxy is moving away from you and you are moving away from it, the faster your moving away the longer it takes for that light to reach you. It would show more of a curve the closer you get to the SOL. But time should be the only thing that curves on the graph.

Maybe. If at all physically or logically achievable. I did think about what I said. I was commenting on the fact that some theists believe that god is everything. With my 0=God theory I was trying to intale that if God is everything that he could also be nothing. So therefore 0=God would be a true statement as well as 1 or -1=God. But this is beside the point really. The way you are thinking is that negative energy cancels out positive energy bringing the value of the universe to 0. Am I right? Zero-energy universe? That all energy equals zero. Why does this define 0=nothing and therefore no God? All that does is equate a number value to something.

Oh what a tangled web we weave in achieving simplicity.

I'm not so sure. I would have to hear a couple of examples to get your point. Here in the west we've had arguements and trials over individual rights, but we've also done those things on subjects that deal with people that are affected collectively. I don't think we have given special rights to an individual where those collectively didn't share the same rights. I dunno, I'll have to think on it.

Isn't it wierd how you can refrence all three: distance, time, and rate of expansion using the SOL. It might nip confusion in the bud.....or on second thought, might further it.

Is the question whether religion correlates to poverty, or whether poverty correlates religion? Most poverty stricken countries hold the more radical religious beliefs. The more wealthy a nation the less religion is relied upon as a way maintaining hope in salvation. The further away from death you are the less you will feel the need for salvation or deliverance from sufferage. Is this a fair assumption? I'm not at all sure where this thread was wanting to go or how some might want to reason the correlation between poverty and religion. I think my assertion above is how I see that the two are connected. And once I think about it, should wealthier nations humble themselves to a certain degree? Maybe try and empathize with those who are closer to death on a daily basis? Hmmmm.......

I thought the answer was yes. Which way are we going.........Yes. According to some we're falling. According to others the answer is out. According to others it's around in a circle counterclockwise to a clock that is upside down facing a wall inside of a ship traveling at a bazillion miles an hour through an expansive mush in an imaginary world where time is an entity. What's better than yes? By the way: that is my favorite face to use. On second examination of the topic question, it seems I was referring to the movement of the universe and not our galaxy. But if the expansion observed is correct it could be said that our galaxy is moving away from all else at the same time all else is moving away from our galaxy. If this is the case then how could galaxies collide? Is it that galaxy clusters collide within and that it is the clusters that are moving apart? And to get back to the general area of the topic question, we are on a path to collide with the galaxy andromida. I think that was it's name. Also are we moving towards andromida or is andromida moving towards us? Sorry for the missassumption.

You might have to explain a little more on your meaning. In the west our individual rights are the same collectively. Is it different in the east? What exactly are collective rights that differ from individual rights? Does a community have different rights as an individual? Or state have rights that do not apply to an individual? I'm probably not thinking about this the same way as you are. Explain and I'll try to understand your meaning better.

To my way of thinking it is a science from the discovery and exploratory stand point. I wouldn't count a practitioner as being a scientist from the standpoint of practicing medicine. But on the other hand, if on the side that practitioner were to explore new ways to use a medicine or practice, then yes I would classify that as a science. Does that make sense?

My question here is whether the Western and Eastern way of thinking really so much different? Do we hold different opinions and ideology on ethical matters such as death, war, disease, population control, the use of natural resourses, and consequences of preventing such things? Are our societies ultimately evolving to include eachothers ways of thought and feelings on these matters? And is it right to have a certain amount of prejudice towards another society if our thoughts are different because of a general difference in the experiences of a society? I know that generally everyone has a certain amount of prejudice towards one thing or another. But are we as world coming closer to a point where these prejudices are no longer valid? I couldn't form my thoughts to anything specific on this topic, so I wanted to get the forums opinion on some of these things.