In other words she is incompetent....if a public figure is not smart enough to KNOW those details, that person is incompetent.
How is leaving investing up to investing professionals "incompetent?" I don't think she has to time to spend hours researching on etrade to determine what stocks to buy.
jahawkin, I'm curious, what specifcally "have Bush/Cheney have done to help out their oil buddies."
They want to drill the ANWR. This is detrimental to the US populus because:
A: There isn't much oil up there (390 days of US oil consumption)
B: It would harm one of the last untouched wildernesses in the US
But, Enron, Exxon and the like would love it.
Bush's new 'energy' plan calls for subsidizing domestic production of oil. How does that not help out his oil buddies?
How is leaving investing up to investing professionals "incompetent?" I don't think she has to time to spend hours researching on etrade to determine what stocks to buy.
jahawkin, I'm curious, what specifcally "have Bush/Cheney have done to help out their oil buddies."
They want to drill the ANWR. This is detrimental to the US populus because:
A: There isn't much oil up there (390 days of US oil consumption)
B: It would harm one of the last untouched wildernesses in the US
But, Enron, Exxon and the like would love it.
Bush's new 'energy' plan calls for subsidizing domestic production of oil. How does that not help out his oil buddies?
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Hmmmm... sounds like she had a good investment advisor.... he put her in stocks which have been doing great for the last couple of years due to a secular change in investing sentiment. She's probably doubled her initial investment. Of course, for a liberal, the idea of making money in the markets by investing in those evil oil companies must be absolutely horrifying, so i'm not surprised she directed her positions to be sold.
jahawkin, I'm curious, what specifically "have Bush/Cheney have done to help out their oil buddies."
They want to drill the ANWR. This is detrimental to the US populus because:
A: There isn't much oil up there (390 days of US oil consumption)
B: It would harm one of the last untouched wildernesses in the US
But, Enron, Exxon and the like would love it.
A: There isn't much oil there. Strange why would the oil companies want to drill where there isn't much oil? Of course the oil companies will also have to pay royalties to the US government to drill there and the costs of working in that environment will be high. jayhawkin you should try for a job as CEO of an oil company, you seem to know so much more then they do. You are also ignoring the very significant amounts of natural gas that is present there. Would you like to know what the new electrical generating plants in California will use? Hint, it's found in Alaska and is one of the cleanest burning of the fossil fuels.
B. It is unproven that any damage would occur because of drilling. The drill pads would only take up 1/10 of 1% of the ANWR. The companies drilling would be under intense scrutiny to make sure that there was no damage to the environment.
Enron does not have anything to do with drilling in Alaska. You might want to check some more of your facts.
"Bush's new 'energy' plan calls for subsidizing domestic production of oil. How does that not help out his oil buddies?"
Got a link to some documentation?
They want to drill the ANWR. This is detrimental to the US populus because:
A: There isn't much oil up there (390 days of US oil consumption)
B: It would harm one of the last untouched wildernesses in the US
But, Enron, Exxon and the like would love it.
A: There isn't much oil there. Strange why would the oil companies want to drill where there isn't much oil? Of course the oil companies will also have to pay royalties to the US government to drill there and the costs of working in that environment will be high. jayhawkin you should try for a job as CEO of an oil company, you seem to know so much more then they do. You are also ignoring the very significant amounts of natural gas that is present there. Would you like to know what the new electrical generating plants in California will use? Hint, it's found in Alaska and is one of the cleanest burning of the fossil fuels.
B. It is unproven that any damage would occur because of drilling. The drill pads would only take up 1/10 of 1% of the ANWR. The companies drilling would be under intense scrutiny to make sure that there was no damage to the environment.
Enron does not have anything to do with drilling in Alaska. You might want to check some more of your facts.
"Bush's new 'energy' plan calls for subsidizing domestic production of oil. How does that not help out his oil buddies?"
Got a link to some documentation?
You are also ignoring the very significant amounts of natural gas that is present there
Oh ya? Who is going to pay the estimated $10 billion to build a gas pipeline? There is plenty of natural gas in nearby Prudhoe Bay, but its not going anywhere because it can't be transported.
It is unproven that any damage would occur because of drilling.
So why did BP Amoco get fined $6 million for oil spills in Alaska in 1999??
Enron does not have anything to do with drilling in Alaska.
I was just throwing that out there as an example. I don't know who the interested oil parties are in the ANWR scene. I do know they all made major contributions to Bush.
you should try for a job as CEO of an oil company
Really? I think I would be good at greasing the palms of Republicans and artificially increasing the price of gas by limiting production.
Here's a link with info
ANWR info
Oh ya? Who is going to pay the estimated $10 billion to build a gas pipeline? There is plenty of natural gas in nearby Prudhoe Bay, but its not going anywhere because it can't be transported.
It is unproven that any damage would occur because of drilling.
So why did BP Amoco get fined $6 million for oil spills in Alaska in 1999??
Enron does not have anything to do with drilling in Alaska.
I was just throwing that out there as an example. I don't know who the interested oil parties are in the ANWR scene. I do know they all made major contributions to Bush.
you should try for a job as CEO of an oil company
Really? I think I would be good at greasing the palms of Republicans and artificially increasing the price of gas by limiting production.
Here's a link with info
ANWR info
What do you expect from a social elitist who knows what's good for everyone, and hold's herself to different standards?
what is it you have against california anyhow?
I would swear you spend half your days scheming, the other half looking for articles to prove slanderous issues.
well apparently he's a truck driver and spends the day listening to rush limbaugh while stewing in his righteous indignation.
<< Really? I think I would be good at greasing the palms of Republicans and artificially increasing the price of gas by limiting production. >>
Once again...NO PROOF! Typical! Liberal ploy to make unfounded allegations....
EVERY business contributes to politicians that have any thing to lose or gain....As Bruce Williams said, "I've never lost an election." Although he is a devout Conervative he is also a busines man and knows it is to his benefit not to put all his eggs in one basket.
Sen. Boxer knew when she became a politician that EVERY personal investment would be looked at and digested in a political microscope. It's part of the territory. The fact she did not know she had investments in "EVIL BIG OIL" means one of two things. She hoped no one would find out or she is totally incompetent...I think both!
Tominator:
Boxer is an Incumbent Democrat in a Liberal state. She will get a reelected. So go bark at some other tree.
Boxer is an Incumbent Democrat in a Liberal state. She will get a reelected. So go bark at some other tree.
jahawkin
Oh ya? Who is going to pay the estimated $10 billion to build a gas pipeline? There is plenty of natural gas in nearby Prudhoe Bay, but its not going anywhere because it can't be transported.
The estimates I have seen are in the 4 billion range, but the cost will be borne by the producing companies. It is normal in projects of these magnatudes for a number of companies to set up a consortium to spread the risk. The gas is there in Alaska and in the Yukon, the question in not whether a pipe line will be built but when.
So why did BP Amoco get fined $6 million for oil spills in Alaska in 1999??
Thanks for pointing out that the regulatory system is working and the incentives for not having spills are already in place.
I was just throwing that out there as an example. I don't know who the interested oil parties are in the ANWR scene. I do know they all made major contributions to Bush.
Throwing out misleading and inaccurate information, must be a liberal. Trial lawyers made huge campaign contributions to Gore, want to talk about that?
Really? I think I would be good at greasing the palms of Republicans and artificially increasing the price of gas by limiting production.
It does sound as if you have experiance at it. But people who think they know it all belong with the democrats.
As for your web site your referenced, thanks for the humour, two eco-freaks set up a web site and you think that proves something. If you want to debate it point by point let me know, there is just too much misinformation there to refute all in one post.
Oh ya? Who is going to pay the estimated $10 billion to build a gas pipeline? There is plenty of natural gas in nearby Prudhoe Bay, but its not going anywhere because it can't be transported.
The estimates I have seen are in the 4 billion range, but the cost will be borne by the producing companies. It is normal in projects of these magnatudes for a number of companies to set up a consortium to spread the risk. The gas is there in Alaska and in the Yukon, the question in not whether a pipe line will be built but when.
So why did BP Amoco get fined $6 million for oil spills in Alaska in 1999??
Thanks for pointing out that the regulatory system is working and the incentives for not having spills are already in place.
I was just throwing that out there as an example. I don't know who the interested oil parties are in the ANWR scene. I do know they all made major contributions to Bush.
Throwing out misleading and inaccurate information, must be a liberal. Trial lawyers made huge campaign contributions to Gore, want to talk about that?
Really? I think I would be good at greasing the palms of Republicans and artificially increasing the price of gas by limiting production.
It does sound as if you have experiance at it. But people who think they know it all belong with the democrats.
As for your web site your referenced, thanks for the humour, two eco-freaks set up a web site and you think that proves something. If you want to debate it point by point let me know, there is just too much misinformation there to refute all in one post.
SuperTool
Point made, but California IS a has a very important economy to the rest of the states. It is important to know the hows and whys of their difficulties so the rest of us might not make the same mistakes.
Point made, but California IS a has a very important economy to the rest of the states. It is important to know the hows and whys of their difficulties so the rest of us might not make the same mistakes.
Once again...NO PROOF! Typical! Liberal ploy to make unfounded allegations....
Oil company price gouging
The estimates I have seen are in the 4 billion range
OK, I can play this game too...Link???
but the cost will be borne by the producing companies.
Just like they covered the cost for the Alaska oil pipeline??
Thanks for pointing out that the regulatory system is working and the incentives for not having spills are already in place.
You claimed that drilling would have no environmental impact. But when one oil company got fined millions of dollars for oil spills, then how can you claim that there is no environmental impact?? The oil they spill which they get fined for does have an environmental impact!!
Throwing out misleading and inaccurate information
Can you point out where I did that?? Because I named Enron as a player in the ANWR?? I'm trying to mislead people here by doing that?? I think not
two eco-freaks
Where did you get that?? One is an environmental scientist and the other is a econimist. What on their website makes them "eco-freaks?" Because they are against drilling in ANWR. Also, please supply a few of the instances of 'misinformation' on the website
Oil company price gouging
The estimates I have seen are in the 4 billion range
OK, I can play this game too...Link???
but the cost will be borne by the producing companies.
Just like they covered the cost for the Alaska oil pipeline??
Thanks for pointing out that the regulatory system is working and the incentives for not having spills are already in place.
You claimed that drilling would have no environmental impact. But when one oil company got fined millions of dollars for oil spills, then how can you claim that there is no environmental impact?? The oil they spill which they get fined for does have an environmental impact!!
Throwing out misleading and inaccurate information
Can you point out where I did that?? Because I named Enron as a player in the ANWR?? I'm trying to mislead people here by doing that?? I think not
two eco-freaks
Where did you get that?? One is an environmental scientist and the other is a econimist. What on their website makes them "eco-freaks?" Because they are against drilling in ANWR. Also, please supply a few of the instances of 'misinformation' on the website
<< Wyden Says Papers Prove Gas Price Gouging >>
Wyden says......even the courts have found no illegal price gouging and only accusations of legal manipulation of the market. All legal and nothing widespread. There was no widespread gouging!
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010614/us/gasoline_conspiracy_4.html
Thursday June 14 10:59 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The California Supreme Court dismissed a class-action suit Thursday alleging major oil refineries colluded to gouge consumers for cleaner-burning gasoline.
The court unanimously ruled that the suit did not provide enough evidence to support allegations that nine major oil companies in California conspired to limit supply and fix prices.
The lawsuit alleged that the state's largest refiners decided to share confidential information and hold back on supplies of reformulated gasoline after the state required refiners to make gasoline that would not create as much pollution.
An appeals court had previously thrown out the case.
Law of Supply and Demand
---------------
Soaring Prices for Natural-Gas Revive Canadian Pipeline Contest
"Regardless of which route is followed, a gas pipeline from the arctic region would cost at least $4 billion. Yet it could bring great quantities of gas to market. Alaska has as much as 100 trillion cubic feet of gas, and the Northwest Territories has at least 70 trillion cubic feet, Canada's National Energy Board estimates. The Yukon has only begun to explore its natural gas potential."
pipelinecosts.
----------------
You claimed that drilling would have no environmental impact. But when one oil company got fined millions of dollars for oil spills, then how can you claim that there is no environmental impact?? The oil they spill which they get fined for does have an environmental impact!!
On top of the fine the BP would also have had to clean up the area where any spill ocured. With such high fines on top of cleanup costs there is a good incentive to do what they can to not let any spill occur. So, prove to me that any long-term damage to the environment occured. What species went extinct because of those spills?
-------------------
house.gov/reynolds
An estimated 16 billion barrels of oil lies beneath a flat tract of Arctic desert on Alaska?s Coastal Plain, enough oil to replace all imports from Saudi Arabia for the next 30 years. And when he returns to Washington next week, U.S. Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, R-NY27, will join Alaska Representative Don Young in an effort to go and get it.
Many of the same environmental groups opposing this exploration are the same who said that the Alaskan pipeline would result in environmental havoc," Reynolds said. "But the success of the pipeline has shattered that myth, and I believe that the same strict environmental and safety standards will allow us to proceed with oil production in the ANWR."
The U.S. Senate approved a similar measure on Thursday.
----------------
Misinformation Site
pipelinecosts.oilanalytics.org
The policies will fail to improve our energy security or reduce OPEC?s market control, and they will damage the U.S. economy and the environment in significant ways.
The amount recoverable with existing technology is 7.7 billion barrels.
The oil companies have not drilled in ANWR, until they do there is no possible way to know how many barrels are recoverable using todays technology. Many advances have been made in the last 50 years in recovering oil, there is no reason to assume that there will not be more advances made in the next 50.
The memory of the Exxon Valdez reminds of the small but potentially serious chance of a catastrophic oil spill.
conoco.com/safety/tankers
Since launching an initial double-hulled tanker in 1992, Conoco has steadily expanded its double-hulled tanker fleet to seven vessels that safely deliver 100 million barrels of crude oil each year. Six of the vessels operate in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, serving U.S. ports, and one works in the North Sea. In addition, Conoco has ordered two new double-hulled oil tankers, which will be delivered in the second half of 1999. The new tankers will transport crude oil to U.S. ports from Mexico and Venezuela, and they will feature the latest environmental safeguards.
Double-Hulled Structure - The tankers? double-hulled structure will provide an additional measure of protection against oil spills. Unlike some other vessels, the tankers? double-hulls will encapsulate the engine room, machinery spaces, fuel oil tanks and engine room bilge areas, as well as all sides and the bottom of the vessel, itself.
alaskajournal.com/
Web posted Sunday, March 11, 2001
Phillips christens second double-hulled tanker
ANCHORAGE -- The second of five state-of-the-art Millennium Class tankers planned for Phillips Petroleum Co. was christened March 3.
A unit of Phillips, Polar Tankers, unveiled the new double-hulled tanker in New Orleans.
The Polar Resolution was constructed by Polar Tankers at the Litton Avondale shipyard in New Orleans. It will be delivered late this year.
The first of the Millennium Class tankers, the Polar Endeavour, will begin carrying Alaska North Slope crude this spring.
--------------
I call them eco-freaks because they are presenting a one-sided biased site which seems to have no purpose other then to advocate limiting US energy production.
Thursday June 14 10:59 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The California Supreme Court dismissed a class-action suit Thursday alleging major oil refineries colluded to gouge consumers for cleaner-burning gasoline.
The court unanimously ruled that the suit did not provide enough evidence to support allegations that nine major oil companies in California conspired to limit supply and fix prices.
The lawsuit alleged that the state's largest refiners decided to share confidential information and hold back on supplies of reformulated gasoline after the state required refiners to make gasoline that would not create as much pollution.
An appeals court had previously thrown out the case.
Law of Supply and Demand
---------------
Soaring Prices for Natural-Gas Revive Canadian Pipeline Contest
"Regardless of which route is followed, a gas pipeline from the arctic region would cost at least $4 billion. Yet it could bring great quantities of gas to market. Alaska has as much as 100 trillion cubic feet of gas, and the Northwest Territories has at least 70 trillion cubic feet, Canada's National Energy Board estimates. The Yukon has only begun to explore its natural gas potential."
pipelinecosts.
----------------
You claimed that drilling would have no environmental impact. But when one oil company got fined millions of dollars for oil spills, then how can you claim that there is no environmental impact?? The oil they spill which they get fined for does have an environmental impact!!
On top of the fine the BP would also have had to clean up the area where any spill ocured. With such high fines on top of cleanup costs there is a good incentive to do what they can to not let any spill occur. So, prove to me that any long-term damage to the environment occured. What species went extinct because of those spills?
-------------------
house.gov/reynolds
An estimated 16 billion barrels of oil lies beneath a flat tract of Arctic desert on Alaska?s Coastal Plain, enough oil to replace all imports from Saudi Arabia for the next 30 years. And when he returns to Washington next week, U.S. Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, R-NY27, will join Alaska Representative Don Young in an effort to go and get it.
Many of the same environmental groups opposing this exploration are the same who said that the Alaskan pipeline would result in environmental havoc," Reynolds said. "But the success of the pipeline has shattered that myth, and I believe that the same strict environmental and safety standards will allow us to proceed with oil production in the ANWR."
The U.S. Senate approved a similar measure on Thursday.
----------------
Misinformation Site
pipelinecosts.oilanalytics.org
The policies will fail to improve our energy security or reduce OPEC?s market control, and they will damage the U.S. economy and the environment in significant ways.
The amount recoverable with existing technology is 7.7 billion barrels.
The oil companies have not drilled in ANWR, until they do there is no possible way to know how many barrels are recoverable using todays technology. Many advances have been made in the last 50 years in recovering oil, there is no reason to assume that there will not be more advances made in the next 50.
The memory of the Exxon Valdez reminds of the small but potentially serious chance of a catastrophic oil spill.
conoco.com/safety/tankers
Since launching an initial double-hulled tanker in 1992, Conoco has steadily expanded its double-hulled tanker fleet to seven vessels that safely deliver 100 million barrels of crude oil each year. Six of the vessels operate in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, serving U.S. ports, and one works in the North Sea. In addition, Conoco has ordered two new double-hulled oil tankers, which will be delivered in the second half of 1999. The new tankers will transport crude oil to U.S. ports from Mexico and Venezuela, and they will feature the latest environmental safeguards.
Double-Hulled Structure - The tankers? double-hulled structure will provide an additional measure of protection against oil spills. Unlike some other vessels, the tankers? double-hulls will encapsulate the engine room, machinery spaces, fuel oil tanks and engine room bilge areas, as well as all sides and the bottom of the vessel, itself.
alaskajournal.com/
Web posted Sunday, March 11, 2001
Phillips christens second double-hulled tanker
ANCHORAGE -- The second of five state-of-the-art Millennium Class tankers planned for Phillips Petroleum Co. was christened March 3.
A unit of Phillips, Polar Tankers, unveiled the new double-hulled tanker in New Orleans.
The Polar Resolution was constructed by Polar Tankers at the Litton Avondale shipyard in New Orleans. It will be delivered late this year.
The first of the Millennium Class tankers, the Polar Endeavour, will begin carrying Alaska North Slope crude this spring.
--------------
I call them eco-freaks because they are presenting a one-sided biased site which seems to have no purpose other then to advocate limiting US energy production.
Last time I checked, Halliburton (the company that Dick Cheney CEO'd) specialized in resource location and state-of-the-art extraction methods. They are not an "oil company". They are currantly regarded within the industry, and world-wide, as the leading experts in extracting natural resources with minimal environmental impact. Their specialty fields are integrated energy services, energy equipment, engineering, construction, and maintenance.
Halliburton Company
BTW - they are good enough at what they do that they received two environmental awards from the Clinton administration.
Halliburton Company
BTW - they are good enough at what they do that they received two environmental awards from the Clinton administration.
*yawn* More GOP bs. Led by party minion Tominator. Don't you guys ever get tired of just trying to force your political beliefs down people's throats. Everyone here knows how everyone else feels when it comes to politics. But you guys constantly, post after post, thread after thread, day in and day out just try to force how right the GOP is in everything down everyone else's throat. You are political zealouts. Just constantly dogging people with the same old stuff all the time. U guys need to grow up.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
Hey Etech, you made a very profound argument.
But lets talk about this from my perspective (I think it is shared by more than a few on this board.) I just don't like the idea of allowing oil companies and natural gas refineries into such places like Alaska in order to retrieve these much needed resources. I understand that the need outways the cost etc. but is this a step in the "wrong direction?" meaning, why do these types of resources continue to be harvested and why do we, as a government, not find other means of providing energy? And if there is such research and planning for alternative means of energy, why does the general public (like me) not hear about it? Please this is not by any means a flame-bait post. You seem to be an intelligent person, I am all ears. Thanks.
But lets talk about this from my perspective (I think it is shared by more than a few on this board.) I just don't like the idea of allowing oil companies and natural gas refineries into such places like Alaska in order to retrieve these much needed resources. I understand that the need outways the cost etc. but is this a step in the "wrong direction?" meaning, why do these types of resources continue to be harvested and why do we, as a government, not find other means of providing energy? And if there is such research and planning for alternative means of energy, why does the general public (like me) not hear about it? Please this is not by any means a flame-bait post. You seem to be an intelligent person, I am all ears. Thanks.
you're American and you're the greatest nation in the world, bar none. Not only that, you know this without visiting ANY other culture. Right? heh. That only reconfirms my opinion
i've had the opportunity to travel throughout western europe.. I've gone through most significant parts of asia and into the phillipines. I've traveled both north and south of our great borders as far south as peru. I can tell you without a doubt that the United States system of government and capitalistic freedom is the most efficiently sound way of doing things.
And we are the greatest nation in the world if we are talking about productivity or technology.
i've had the opportunity to travel throughout western europe.. I've gone through most significant parts of asia and into the phillipines. I've traveled both north and south of our great borders as far south as peru. I can tell you without a doubt that the United States system of government and capitalistic freedom is the most efficiently sound way of doing things.
And we are the greatest nation in the world if we are talking about productivity or technology.
Orbyte think of it this way.
The United States as a nation is required to exist for our precious wildlife to continue.
Domestic exploration eases reliance on foreign crude in time of conflict, particularly in a multi regional battle. If we go, china or russia take alaska. And if you thought ANWAR had a grim future with exploration in 1/10th of 1% right now, think about what russia would do to it.
The United States as a nation is required to exist for our precious wildlife to continue.
Domestic exploration eases reliance on foreign crude in time of conflict, particularly in a multi regional battle. If we go, china or russia take alaska. And if you thought ANWAR had a grim future with exploration in 1/10th of 1% right now, think about what russia would do to it.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
gt, Thanks for the interesting response, anyone else?
As a continuation of gts thinking it occurred to me that the United States must understand its responsibility, as a world superpower, to protect its natural treasures yet at the same time be able to manage its treasures in a way as to extract those needed resources (which maintains self-reliance). Without typing too much cuz I am on my in-laws POS machine in the forests here in CA, I wanted to ask if there are those of you out there that think that the US congress and executive branch have that understanding?
Thanks for intelligent responses, in advance.
Oh and Tominator, you're ok! and I know you just love rousing people up eh?
*edit spelling*
As a continuation of gts thinking it occurred to me that the United States must understand its responsibility, as a world superpower, to protect its natural treasures yet at the same time be able to manage its treasures in a way as to extract those needed resources (which maintains self-reliance). Without typing too much cuz I am on my in-laws POS machine in the forests here in CA, I wanted to ask if there are those of you out there that think that the US congress and executive branch have that understanding?
Thanks for intelligent responses, in advance.
Oh and Tominator, you're ok! and I know you just love rousing people up eh?
*edit spelling*
What's impressive is that Boxer has been in power for a while, had energy stocks for a while, and was able to represent the needs of California. Bush has been president for a short time (and governer before that,yadda, yadda, yadda) and is already a whore. His father was not the whore that Bush Jr. is. Even his fund raising is more pathetic that Bush Sr. (at least when Bush Sr. asked us for cash, he did it with class; Bush Jr's attempts have been to ask us to attend a white house dinner and bring $2500 per person please) of course i am just speaking for argument's sake b/c in actuality Boxer annoys me, and I am pleased that the president looks after the interests of his contributors (finally a measurable return on campaign donations).
<< I can tell you without a doubt that the United States system of government and capitalistic freedom is the most efficiently sound way of doing things. >>
you speak of capitalism. i thought you were talking about the design of the Republic itself. many countries have a free market, when you say govt, are you referring to the economy and the structure of govt? it is debatable if the design of our govt is the primary factor in the strength of our economy.
<< I can tell you without a doubt that the United States system of government and capitalistic freedom is the most efficiently sound way of doing things. >>
you speak of capitalism. i thought you were talking about the design of the Republic itself. many countries have a free market, when you say govt, are you referring to the economy and the structure of govt? it is debatable if the design of our govt is the primary factor in the strength of our economy.
I think the effectivness system of govt depends on the size of the country, the population, economy, implementation etc. I don't think it can be said one type of government is ideal in all situations. There are countries that enjoy a higher standard of living, lower crime rates, less unemployment, better healthcare, that the US. We are the most powerful country in the world which is why we assume our govt is the best.
Well first of all 'less unemployment' does not mean 'better.' I will spare you the lecture and just put it bluntly, 0 unemployment in a capitalistic system is bad. 0 unemployment for Europe, canada, australia, the US.. is a bad thing.
Higher standard of living can be based on a variety of things. The united states has a better health care system and more advanced medical technologies than canada.. and a higher gdp per cap than canada but the UN has consistently voted canada as the greatest place to live.
Lower crime rates is also another subjective term. China has something like 1/8th the rate of crime that the U.S. does..yet has 5 times the population. But their methods of maintaining these low rates could be considered cruel and unusual.
When it comes right down to it regardless of size, population, religious creed.. the freedom a capitalistic system has to offer is the most efficient that we currently are aware of. Whether something new comes along in the next few years, we'll just have to wait and see.
Well first of all 'less unemployment' does not mean 'better.' I will spare you the lecture and just put it bluntly, 0 unemployment in a capitalistic system is bad. 0 unemployment for Europe, canada, australia, the US.. is a bad thing.
Higher standard of living can be based on a variety of things. The united states has a better health care system and more advanced medical technologies than canada.. and a higher gdp per cap than canada but the UN has consistently voted canada as the greatest place to live.
Lower crime rates is also another subjective term. China has something like 1/8th the rate of crime that the U.S. does..yet has 5 times the population. But their methods of maintaining these low rates could be considered cruel and unusual.
When it comes right down to it regardless of size, population, religious creed.. the freedom a capitalistic system has to offer is the most efficient that we currently are aware of. Whether something new comes along in the next few years, we'll just have to wait and see.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter