Yesterday, the head of the International Monetary Fund described the state of anxiety that the global economy is in, with increased risks and uncertainties. What’s to blame? The IMF blames the weak U.S. economy. One of the IMF’s economists explained, “We still do not know the full extent of the decline in the house market and the subprime problems of the U.S. economy.”
The weakness of American right wing economics isn’t just threatening the U.S. economy. It’s threatening the economic status of communities around the world.
(Source: Associated Press, October 22, 2007)
Exactly right. The “right wing economics” are bad. If we had an economic system more like the USSR did (since they were definitely “left-wing”, the world economy would be thriving.
What is the rest of the context of the IMF quote? Does HE, the expert on the subject, blame “right wing economics”? I don’t know what economic measures you’d suggest the U.S. take (and i’d love to hear em, as I don’t know much about economics), but I’m guessing they are much like pure and complete pacifism by the US. Great in theory, but horrible in practice.
But hey, maybe you’re right, if we had communal property instead of private property, we wouldn’t have to worry about the sub-prime housing markets.
Also, if you don’t like marshmallows, you clearly must be in favor of eating tar. Makes complete sense, Joseph.
Let’s explore more dimensions of Joseph-speak.
If you don’t like a stick in the eye, you must be in favor of genital mutilation.
If you don’t like air pollution, you must be in favor of water pollution.
If you don’t like the Iraq War, you must be in favor of going to war against Argentina.
If you don’t like the fossil fuel energy system, you must be in favor of people running barefoot to get wherever they need to go.
Thanks for the insight, Joseph!
Oh, and Joseph, how would you know if pacifism by the U.S. would be horrible?
It’s never been tried.
Well, non-intervention with military force was tried at the beginning of both WW1 and WW2. Both times, history books argue, the US turned the wars around. So it was tried, and people were dying. And millions were probably going to die because of it if we continued. But hey, it was what we should have done, right?
And, I ask again, since people would rather focus on my sarcasm than my question, what exactly would you propose the US does, economically, in order to fix such problems? (I’m assuming communal property wasn’t the real answer) As I admitted, I know very little about economics, and have no idea what the exact policies are that we have now and what ones would be better. Information would be appreciated.
Why don’t you follow the link, Joseph, and actually read the whole article Peregrin links to.
Most of us don’t have to be spoon fed and see the whole article pasted on the same page for us. If you’re interested in the subject all you have to do is click over there and get the details.
That’s absurd, Joseph. There was not a policy of pacifism before World War I and World War II. First of all, the non-pacifism of World War I led to the problem of World War II. Even before then, before World War I, the United States was not pacifist.
The absurdity of you citing two wars as examples of how pacifism doesn’t work is clear to any reasonable thinker. It’s like talking about two sexual affairs as examples of how sexual abstinence is harmful.
It’s not sarcasm that people are focusing on, Joseph. It’s your lack of thinking skills and extremist ideology.
Does that link go to a text of the IMF President’s speech? NO. It links to an AP article. It also does NOT support Peregin’s unfounded claim that “right-wing economics” are to blame. Nor does it explain what the current economic POLICIES of the US are. Nor does it explain what the US SHOULD be doing in order to fix it (i.e. What non-right-wing economic policies are suggested to fix the current problem)
I’ve asked multiple times for this to be explained as i’m not an economic expert nor know much about economics beyond the fact that communist regime economics have failed (which is the only economics I know of that are definitely non-right-wing). So, again, what are we doing now wrong, and what would be good for the future?
As for the rather trivial aside on pacifism, I’m referring to unilateral United States pacifism, which is what has tended to be implicitly advocated by Peregrin (of course, worldwide pacifism would make the scenario much happier, but also unrealistic). The United States did NOT fight in WW1 or WW2 until the wars had already been going on for YEARS. The US fighting in the wars ended US “pacifism” in regard to those conflicts.
Your argument is flawed and designed to only prove itself. It boils down to “they were wars, so it wasn’t pacifism”. So, logically, the only way to prove pacifism works is by maintaining pacifism and not having a war occur. Under your test, if a war occurs, it’s not evidence that the pacifism PREVIOUS to the war didn’t work, it’s just evidence that war is bad. That totally ignores the fact that in any given case, a nation can choose to CONTINUE to be pacifist in response to ANYTHING. Of course, doing so will typically result in being conquered and/or killed. And in such cases, pacifism has been proven to not work.
The allies being “pacifist” instead of invading when Germany was building up for WW2 allowed for the conquering of France and the Holocaust. The US not getting involved at the beginning of WW1 and WW2 allowed for the strengthening of the Axis positions which led to more deaths than were needed. Your “pacifism” (unless you’re using a very unique definition of it) HAS been tried. And it has failed. And caused people to die. A lot of people.
Of course if you’re saying worldwide pacifism would be nice and hasn’t been tried, I would agree with that. Of course that’s why “World Peace” is such a lofty goal to accomplish.
The U.S. was never pacifist, it was isolationist. After all, it was a MILITARY base that was attacked at Pearl Harbor. It’s amazing how the apologists for any military action always go back to “WWII The Big One” as a cookie-cutter approach to any problem.
Did you even read the article Joseph? IMF stands for International Monetary Fund. Why on God’s green earth are you going off about “pacifism”?
I’m going off on pacfism because of post #4, which asked how would I know it’d be horrible when it has never been tried.
And pacifism isn’t denounced by having a military. Pacifism is not engaging in combat/attacking/war, which the US was not doing until later on.
And “apologists for any military action” go back to WW2 because it is the easiest historical example to show why pacifism by a nation, or a group of nations, DOES NOT WORK. If people would use more nuanced and informed arguments about the use of military action (such as stating military action should be used in X, Y, and Z cases, and NOT in A, B, and C cases/situations), then people could not as easily use WW2 as an example (unless of course, the limitations would have precluded use of military action in WW2)
And yes, I read the article, and there was no context explaining what “right-wing” economics are causing the problems. Nor does it explain what “left-wing” or “non-right-wing” economics would fix the problem. Which was my main question, to begin with. So, again, if anyone would care to fill me in on what “right-wing” economics are hurting us and what the solution is, i’d love to broaden by knowledge by hearing it.
You were the one who started the pacifism thing in the first comment, Joseph, as an example of an IMF economic policy.
If you really want to discuss economics, why don’t you take a few classes, or even google the subject. I think we’ve already figured out you could broaden your knowledge.
The only reason I went into DETAIL on pacifism is because Peregin asked how would you know that it wouldn’t work since it’s never been tried. It was meant to serve as an example, and then I answered why it’s a horrible idea. And I never used it as an example of IMF policy, I used it as an example of something great in theory and horrible in practice, like COMMUNISM.
And the burden of proving what a GOOD economic policy is, and explaining what a “right-wing” economic policy is, is on Peregin Wood, since he’s the one who made the broad and unsupported claim (additionally unsupported by his article) that “right wing economics” are causing problems. By making that claim, he’s stating that some actions that are currently being taken, economically, are causing the problems stated in the linked argument. I want to know what those are (and without them, the argument loses merit). Additionally, I’m wondering what alternative actions the US could take that would fix such problems talked about in the article. None of those have also been stated.
Without such statements, the post is simply an unsubstantiated and unsupported rant.