About the Federal Reserve

Not even close

Leftist resentment built up most often on lack of understanding that capital is a value gained from work and that higher, managerial positions need more education (which is expensive too) and responsibility. My parents saw how country ruled by leftist, socialist ideas work. I think you should see how eastern europe looked when we "solved" the problem of that capitalist pyramid, Grand.

US Federal Bank is however a very curious case. I don't have enough knowledge to post an opinion, but I've heard very interesting stories about it from academic friends working in economy school.

My knowledge of economics is far too limited for me to offer a response to this that is not ignorant. This is ironic since almost all that I have an opinion about in politics somehow ties back into the allocation of money amongst members of society. A list of scholarly journal articles discussing the topic would be interesting to sift through. Even if those articles were provided however, I would probably struggle to make sense of core concepts without advice from someone more learned than I in the field. Frustrating though it can be, this sort of stuff is a bit over my head.

I tend to settle somewhere on the centre-left all around. Without a compelling explanation of how an alternative to capitalism would work I feel obliged to seek out ideas for reform instead of a fundamental shift in economic paradigm. Even though I have strong convictions and values that would suggest a more hardcore set of corresponding positions, I do not have enough options or comprehension of each available perspective to arrive at unorthodox conclusions with confidence. It seems prudent for me to settle on social democratism while remaining receptive to other possibilities.

For now I approach these kinds of fiscal matters with extreme caution. If others get an interesting, intelligent discussion going I will gladly watch and learn. At times it is better to just read than ramble... though I will probably ramble anyway. :p

There isn't a US Federal Bank for starters. The term is "Federal Reserve", which is a conglomerate of financial institutions which make up this body. Economics is a very complex animal and no one knows how it works in it's entirety, including which factors effect foriegn currencies, market values & futures. I doubt most of you, including Grand, even understand Capitalism in itself, since you lack the exprience and knowledge of this complex system to comment formally and with accuracy. You Tube as a source? Get real.

Speaking of Oil. The US gets less than .05% of its oil from Libya, whereas Europe gets 85% of their crude from that country, so why are we wasting our ammunition and resources there? ( I know why, I just want to see what idiotic answers are posted). It's Europes problem in my opinion.

Quote from Gunny

Speaking of Oil. The US gets less than .05% of its oil from Libya, whereas Europe gets 85% of their crude from that country, so why are we wasting our ammunition and resources there? ( I know why, I just want to see what idiotic answers are posted). It's Europes problem in my opinion.

My casual guess would be that the realist, neo-conservative policies pursued by President Bush are giving way to some sort of Wilsonian idealism under President Obama. Limited engagement and leadership, leaning on international cooperation, acting multilaterally, and not having a clear interest in doing this to benefit the United States suggests to me that the goal might be to nudge along principles of liberalism and self-determination in North Africa and the Middle East without stepping on the toes of strategic partners in the region or turning it into another painful occupation / decade of nation-building adventures.

Pulling our punches avoids Americanizing the war. This sidesteps having our assistance cause a legitimacy crisis for the new regime if the rebels prevail while also shielding us from some of the political fallout if the rebels fail. We also cannot afford to open up a new front right now without a round of serious tax hikes, which given the current political conditions would not go over well with the electorate. Engaging in a full-scale war without the support of the American public would risk sinking our troops and policy objectives into the same kind of quagmire that compromised American commitment to winning in Vietnam.

On a side note, nobody I know in France seems to have much confidence in their armed forces but that has certainly not stopped their government from getting more involved in Africa as of late. They seem to have more hard power and military proficiency than the average person gives them credit for. On the other hand, I am not well-versed in European affairs.

Gunny - you have your arms in there because your nations is member of the NATO. When they are having their role in it then nearly everyone has its feets in it. Also we Germans - who have voted against interventions in this kind. Now we have our role there as well - just to dont make our NATO partners mad at us. What is absolute nonsense if you ask me. Is there a rule inside this Treaty Agreement that states - all members have to pull their countries into war if just the majority want to?

Well if its about oil - then i am happy that we germans are not soo much involved like France is. Wondering why they are interfering at all. They have their nuclear power . why they need oil ;D. We dont need oil as well. Because we are soon the greenest industrial nation *lol* Sorry sometimes i like my sarcasm^^

Too much Deus Ex Grand

@Grand: Do you even know what FEMA is? FEMA works hand in hand with Emergency services while controling disaster zones , providing aid, shelter, food, water, clothing and infrastructure to needed areas. FEMA doesn't have "troops". This is as bad as calling Louis Farrakahns followers "soldiers", where the only thing "soldier" about them is their consistent baggy-pants-hanging-off-the-back-of-their-ass uniform.

FEMA is largely private individuals who are called into action when a disaster relief occurs, based on their specialty, that consist of engineers, doctors, nurses, paramedics, search & rescue teams, construction workers etc.

EDIT: Also, the US will not lose it's freedom for a variety of reasons, but one of those is, we are a heavily armed society of citizens and throughout history it is proven that armed citizens who have the power to defend their "property" , remain free from government tyranny. Look at all the countries who have removed the guns from society, the citizens are subjected to the will of the government without recourse or any means of checks & balances. While freedom itself is subjective, the people still have the final say.

Quote from [UR]GrandAndreasK

And i guess Capitalism is the lesser evil of the other systems......but i still have a dread fealing of the new world order....that usa will end upp rule the world....no freedom only F.E.M.A troops going down the streets evryware.....

The former part is somewhat close to my attitude at this point, the latter not so much.

If you still worried though I advise keeping a close eye on social conservatives and self-described libertarians. A large number are genuine. However, there is a segment of people alongside them that is vulnerable to authoritarian influences. Telltale warning signs include unquestioning trust of party leaders or demagogues, a lot of fear, aggression toward opponents, bigotry, doublethink, passionate patriotism, closed-mindedness, absence of logical connectivity between convictions, and a tendency to keep among and feel more confident when in groups of their "own kind." Quite a few are in the Tea Party movement. Be on the lookout regardless of who is leading. Some of these folks are conservative Democrats from down South. The American left itself though, as a whole, is a less susceptible to authoritarianism.

The leaders with latent potential to rally authoritarian followers are amoral, ruthless, manipulative, and seek out control over others. Their self-interest can lead them to feign being religious to appease conservative followers, lack loyalty to followers, be apathetic to the suffering of others, think of women and minorities as inferior, and live by a "get what you want however you can" attitude. In the U.S., these blokes are capitalist but may go a step further to believe equality is undesirable because a level playing field would hinder their own efforts to get more power. Those who are especially prejudiced and more religious are well-poised to muster a devoted following. Former House Speaker Tom DeLay and former President George W. Bush may be examples of this. I am not intent on bashing the right-wing here but it appears to be where the threat is most evident.

Anyway, most Republicans I know are okay though, FEMA is an agency that responds to natural disasters, and the States probably could not conquer the world right now even if it wanted to. Well. If there was enough nuclear brinkmanship involved then maybe. But that is not going to happen. Gunny is also right. There are a mind-boggling number of guns in circulation here. Combine that with a heritage of paranoia about the state, consolidated liberal democratic institutions, a pluralist culture, people who value their liberties, and an assortment of other factors and what you have is a fierce guerrilla war. The one big obstacle: getting Americans to realize what is happening. It would not surprise me at all if the regime could convince more than a quarter of the population that it is legitimate, righteous, and worth supporting. More might choose not to act.

Quote from [UR]GrandAndreasK

Everyone have a closer look at this:
http://wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

I really like this sort of stuff - great post. xD

The USA had it´s role and are going to loose it every Day closer. Imperialism, economical or from it´s direkt meaning can´t survive it´s own claim like shown in the history over centuries. The Roman Empire went down as it was for Egypt, Europe had it´s lessons, the US are getting it more and more, others will follow. With every new active "Leadership" of the known or active worlds economic and driven moralities the worldwide social and economic networks will come closer together. In a few hundred years they may come close enough together to cut of nationalism, self-aggrandizement and massive religeous influences. We will not experience it but with some luck our grand children will - if we or our children didn´t destroyed everything.

At least there is hope, especially if the clearing of such private nettings are easy shown to also those, who are not familar with financial market manipulations or the factual triggers, in most easiest ways. Take the ppl where they are come from - if it needs time, give it to them.

The Internet will make the rest.

There is an interesting theory about world leadership civilization/countries.

Throughout history you can see that mostly (there are exeptions) leadership shifts from East to West:
Mesopotomia, Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Eastern Europe (not going to develop or I am not done), UK, USA, Japan, China... India after?
(looks change is faster and faster)
If you check a map this is very striking... and we will soon have made one "loop" around the world.