The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

yea i agree, the only the difference i have heard is people should have been given vouchers by the government, to pay the corporations to get all thier debts paid off while paying the corporations too, basically greasing all of the gears,

instead of just lubing and greasing the corporate wheels and leaving the people to grind away giving corporations extra profits paying debts while said corporations and banks had government bailouts and purchases of debts

basically one benefits consumers and in turn benefits corporations, the other benefits corporations and makes the consumers pay twice, through debts and taxes

That would mean....

I merely joke. It would have been an interesting proposal but it would take a long time to implement and time was of the essence. Though that doesn't mean that I was happy with the bailouts. But I do struggle to think of a better course of action...that would work in time.

[AleksisMi]

the government buys the corporations and issues refunds and fair pricers to consumers...

[SoulReaver]

That would mean....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2jnX2y30DE

I merely joke.

in a way the US is well on its way to becoming the US-SR

[mad_gater]

the government buys the corporations and issues refunds and fair pricers to consumers...

so.....100% total nationalization of any and all means of production then? I think the failed collectivist dictatorships of the 20th century shows us what a supremely bad idea that is

[Coco Pops]

in a way the US is well on its way to becoming the US-SR

That flag in the video may well be accurate. Oh dear.

NO ONE MAN can dismantle NATO.

Why is Tribblehead trying to break up NATO?

Don't you realize that if you do that a certain country we won't name would love to mess up the EU borders once there is no NATO..

[Annoyed]

That flag in the video may well be accurate. Oh dear.

NO ONE MAN can dismantle NATO.

Why is Tribblehead trying to break up NATO?

Don't you realize that if you do that a certain country we won't name would love to mess up the EU borders once there is no NATO..

To be honest, I'm not paying a great deal of attention to this issue, but as I understand it, Trump is just insisting that all members pay the costs, as they've agreed to.

I listen to a news / talk radio station overnights while I'm sleeping. I heard a news report while half-awake last night that said something about 5 of 29 NATO countries are actually meeting their 2% GDP requirement.

Seems that is correct.

http://time.com/4680885/nato-defense...-budget-trump/

Getting NATO allies to spend more on defense is one of President Donald Trump’s most consistent foreign policy proposals. He might be on to something.

According to NATO’s own figures, just 5 of the 28 alliance members meet the requirement agreed upon in 2006 that members spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Here’s a deeper look at the handful of countries actually meeting their obligations:

I'd say he's got a valid point.

[Chaka-Z0]

It's been also stated that using GDP as an indicator is wrong. We are not in the 30s anymore, GDP does not take into effect service-based businesses, only concrete stuff such as farms and so on.

Edit: That being said, as hard as it is for me to say, Trump is right on this one. Other countries knows it too, and the outcome of this meeting has been pretty positive actually. I believe NATO agreed to put in 33 billions more in defense expenses?

[Annoyed]

It's been also stated that using GDP as an indicator is wrong. We are not in the 30s anymore, GDP does not take into effect service-based businesses, only concrete stuff such as farms and so on.

Edit: That being said, as hard as it is for me to say, Trump is right on this one. Other countries knows it too, and the outcome of this meeting has been pretty positive actually. I believe NATO agreed to put in 33 billions more in defense expenses?

That's good. You've taken your first step into a larger world.

[aretood2]

It's been also stated that using GDP as an indicator is wrong. We are not in the 30s anymore, GDP does not take into effect service-based businesses, only concrete stuff such as farms and so on.

Edit: That being said, as hard as it is for me to say, Trump is right on this one. Other countries knows it too, and the outcome of this meeting has been pretty positive actually. I believe NATO agreed to put in 33 billions more in defense expenses?

Yes it does take that into account. GDP is the total value of all finished goods and services. And I do find it problematic that our allies feel like skirting something they agreed to. In anycase, GDP is a useful index and it does have many uses in economics. The problem is that the agreement had one flaw. GDP and national budget aren't the same thing. In theory, 2% of a nation's GDP could be 50% of that nation's budget.

[Chaka-Z0]

Yes it does take that into account. GDP is the total value of all finished goods and services. And I do find it problematic that our allies feel like skirting something they agreed to. In anycase, GDP is a useful index and it does have many uses in economics. The problem is that the agreement had one flaw. GDP and national budget aren't the same thing. In theory, 2% of a nation's GDP could be 50% of that nation's budget.

It does not take it fully in account. For instance, innovation, research and development, state spending (costs), entertainment businesses that are free (Facebook, YouTube, etc.), RB&B locations, and much more that do not necessarily produce goods are left out of the GDP calculations.

GDP is an outdated, post-war era indicator, that literally serves no other purposes than to calculate the input and output of the production made by a country. There are modern indicators that were created by various economists (you will excuse me if I do not recall I wasn't the most acute listener in my economy classes) to reflect our modern reality.

[Annoyed]

Yes it does take that into account. GDP is the total value of all finished goods and services. And I do find it problematic that our allies feel like skirting something they agreed to. In anycase, GDP is a useful index and it does have many uses in economics. The problem is that the agreement had one flaw. GDP and national budget aren't the same thing. In theory, 2% of a nation's GDP could be 50% of that nation's budget.

Then the country in question needs to raise it's national budget to meet their obligations. If some nation wants to maintain low tax rates (or whatever they are doing) for a low national budget, that has nothing to do with their obligations to others. If they have to raise taxes to meet their 2%, fine, so be it. They should not expect others to pick up their slack.

[Chaka-Z0]

Well all-in-all, Trump announces victory, he did it again and there's going to be an additional 33 billions invested by NATO countries! ... which was already planned since 2014

Oh and most countries will never reach the 2%, Canada will raise it to 1.4%.

But it's a Trumpictory so we're good!

[Chaka-Z0]

That's good. You've taken your first step into a larger world.

I feel like I've just made a pact with Sokar.

[Annoyed]

Well all-in-all, Trump announces victory, he did it again and there's going to be an additional 33 billions invested by NATO countries! ... which was already planned since 2014

Oh and most countries will never reach the 2%, Canada will raise it to 1.4%.

But it's a Trumpictory so we're good!

Well, then maybe those nations that won't meet their obligations shouldn't be involved?

[Gatefan1976]

It's been also stated that using GDP as an indicator is wrong. We are not in the 30s anymore, GDP does not take into effect service-based businesses, only concrete stuff such as farms and so on.

Edit: That being said, as hard as it is for me to say, Trump is right on this one. Other countries knows it too, and the outcome of this meeting has been pretty positive actually. I believe NATO agreed to put in 33 billions more in defense expenses?

No, he is wrong because the 2% spending is a future goal, not a current requirement.
He want's to apply the "end result" to the present, which was why he backed out of the Paris Accords.
He sold the end result as a current requirement, and morons agreed.