Romney vs. Obama - 2012 Presidential Debates - Let's score it!

[Gandalf]

Next up the debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan.
Topic: Foreign and domestic policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time - October 11th.
Location: Centre College in Danville, Kentucky.
Moderator: Martha Raddatz (ABC News Chief Foreign Correspondent)

I hope Ryan tears this liberal dip-shit Biden a new asshole next thursday.

2012 Presidential Debate Schedule � 2012 Election Central

Cheers

The gloves will be off in this one. The vice prez contenders don't have tobe presidential. When Ryan starts lying about stuff I'm guessing Biden will call him on it.

It would seem both candidates were bullshitting a little bit.

FactCheck.org : Dubious Denver Debate Declarations

My personal favorite was that free markets can't exist w/o regulations.

I would just change the word 'exist' to 'function effectively'. No, problems with that then. Look at the financial system it is a clear example of an environment where constant deregulation led to catastrophe. Not that Obama did much about it. The prick!

[VictorCharlie]

We don't have a free market therefore the statement is patently false.

[Gandalf]

We don't have a free market therefore the statement is patently false.

No country has truly free markets, or at least they certainly shouldn't aspire to have them. Free market is just a term in economics books and one that doesn't really have any meaning if you are going to apply it to the real world. A true free market is an appalling concept and is good for only an elite few. Regulation is an important function.

Obama was kind of right really, all he is saying is that markets need regulation. That isn't controversial.

[VictorCharlie]

Well there is a typical statist opinion and Obama didn't say it, Romney did. Free market is a very real term and something we should all aspire too b/c your economic freedom is paramount to your overall freedom. The truth is the systems you prescribe too are much more inclined to crony capitalism than anything else.

[Gandalf]

Well there is a typical statist opinion and Obama didn't say it, Romney did. Free market is a very real term and something we should all aspire too b/c your economic freedom is paramount to your overall freedom. The truth is the systems you prescribe too are much more inclined to crony capitalism than anything else.

If there is complete economic freedom then markets can be manipulated, for instance as commodities markets are being manipulated now. How is that freedom for people who are having to put food on their table? You need regulation to protect consumers. Look at how utilities in the UK have risen in cost since they were privatised? There simply isn't enough regulation on those industries. Nobody is made free by having to spend more money on necessities. Another instance is here in Korea where more and more Koreans are only being employed on temporary contracts. A better and more protective system that sides with workers rather than abusive employers would be better.

Crony capitalism occurs because there is not enough regulation. Corporations become free to abuse labour markets and in the bigger picture industries and markets are simply not regulated enough.

[VictorCharlie]

Again you are not talking about free markets but privately owned business with different levels of government leverage applied. It is the absurdity of centrally planned economics that allows for this to happen. When government picks the economic winners and losers your precious common man will always be the loser.

[Gandalf]

Again you are not talking about free markets but privately owned business with different levels of government leverage applied. It is the absurdity of centrally planned economics that allows for this to happen. When government picks the economic winners and losers your precious common man will always be the loser.

All economies do this though. Centralised planning is a key component of any successful economy. Free markets are the realm of nutters like Friedman who was an advocate of such things and every experiment with such things was a failure.

Look at the growth of Korea, there was massive government involvement and it worked. Everybody benefited. Electronics, cars and steel and everybody wins.

[Gandalf]

America too lest we forget. There was never such a thing as free market America in the 20th century.

[VictorCharlie]

Freedom is such a foreign concept to you. Anway you pretty much discredit yourself with your comment about Friedman but please tell me about these free market experiments that have failed. Regardless, since you informed me that I lack any ability at objectivity regarding foreign policy b/c of my employment clearly due to your European upbringing and government dependency to feel safe your responses are predictable and carry no value. That's fair right?

[Gandalf]

Not at all, I have my own views on what freedom is, but with it being one of those words with a multitude of different interpretations and nuances we clearly think quite differently. I don't believe in a large welfare state, but I do believe in governments supporting their key industries. I also believe in the nationalisation of utilities.

Also I see nothing wrong in discrediting Friedman who was an economic idealist and thus his ideas had no place in the modern world. Markets left to their own devices lead to crony capitalism and ultimately make the world a worse place for the vast majority. They don't work and I would love to hear of an example where they have. You need government involvement, it's a necessity.

I am not going to get into personal swipes or long drawn debates, but will just tell you to read Klein's The Shock Doctrine. It tells you all about what America with its Chicago school economists tried to do globally. Needless to say, smaller government being swarmed by US multinationals is seldom good for the freedom of people in sovereign nations. And neither does any of it trickle back to the American public. I'm sure you know about the history of Chicago school economics, it doesn't take me to tell you what Google can't.

Anyway, sorry if I offended you by saying that thing before. Personally, I am not even that high on welfare states. I prefer the model we have out here TBH. I pay for my health and my pension and taxes are relatively low. I prefer that kind of model to the ridiculous UK system. It is one of the reasons I will never return....income tax, council tax, more VAT, tax on beer, just everything. Get out of here with that. On the flip side I am also against the utilities costs, the fuel costs, public transport costs, rent costs. The UK is a joke.

It is a mixture of both sides. Big government and out of control private corporations and the middle man can't really do all that much. For me a lot of freedom is about being able to do what you want free of that nonsense and to save money and to just have free time. Mind you my job is also partly the result of government investment so perhaps I have some bias too!

Edit: That post was typed out quickly, so excuse any flaws. I wanted to get to the Grand Prix on time.

[VictorCharlie]

We have yet to ever get a true free market and more than likely never will. One can't point to a failed free market but one can definitely point to multiple failed centrally planned economies. The truth is corporations don't want a free market either. Sure they wan't less regulation in financial sectors but they sure don't want transparency and they love their subsidies, tax breaks, tariffs and various market protections. Regulation is always viewed in the mold of allowing stock brokers and banks to play fast and loose but a true free market would remove even more protections of corporations than anything else. To use your example of nationalized utilities: If you are pleased with your services then great but b/c of the government monopoly, competition is non-existent. Your services could be better or cheaper but you will never know and if you are ever not pleased then you have no recourse. If we can agree that monopolies are generally bad for the consumer and competition in markets creates better, more varied and cheaper goods/services then choosing between a free market and nationalized services isn't hard, the trick is actually getting a market that isn't being leveraged one way or the other.

Now regarding Friedman, the man is the most esteemed economist of you and I's lifetime. Saying the man doesn't know what is he talking about is ludicrous. So sure Keynes apologists, statist, crony capitalist and big government proponents have been looking for ways to attack a system that would take power away from the elite. Friedman and Rothbard are the continuation of free thinking championed by Mises and Hayek and even Bastiat. Their system is based on freedom where centralized economics is based on coercion, violence and an arrogance that they can control the market in the first place.

I added Shock Doctrine to my Amazon list but Friednman's Capitalism and Freedom, Hayek's Road to Serfdom and just about anything by Mises, Rothbard or Bastiat would all provide a better understanding of how effective a free market can be and why the powers that be conspire to deny it from happening. Lastly, thank you for your apology.

[Gandalf]

Friedman is regarded only by the most extreme of ideologues. The experiment of stripping governments down to the bare minimum has been attempted by Chicago school nutters numerous times and in many countries. It doesn't benefit society in any way, shape nor form. It was tried in Russia, Poland, South Africa, Argentina, to a degree the UK and the US etc etc. In many places. It means deregulating and allowing powerful corporations and individuals to do whatever the heck they want. Thus mass unemployment, shipping of jobs overseas, commodities manipulation, currency instability, mass privatisation etc etc. In many instances the only way to quell dissent was to use force (vanishing and torture) and in our societies police brutality and legislation against long term mass dissent.

I regard the field of economics with deep suspicion as the field is tainted. Many leading economists work for major corporations and thus they ARE definitely tainted. They advocate ideas that are good for the corporations, good for the elite and ultimately what we have is the mess the world is in today. These people propagated and wrote papers arguing that deregulation and allowing markets to correct themselves free of government involvement was the way to go and like fools the politicians lapped it up. They too are a tainted breed who like the taste of money.

The free market is a term that exists for politicians and is something weird economists yearn for as the result of years of brainwashing and a desire to join the elite. Of course it has no real value in the real world and should NEVER do so. It is a horrid Darwinian concept that can lead to no good. Money is a man made concept and thus must be controlled with care. You cannot allow individuals and corporations to become God's with their money and that has largely become the case. They control exchange rates, they export jobs overseas, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Nothing good can ever come of such an evil concept and it is evil.

You need government control, but ultimately what you need is government run in the interests of the people and that is something that America is quite definitely lacking and Britain too. The closest Britain has come to working in the interests of the people was the Labour government post WW2. Ever since it has gradually getting chipped away and Friedman definitely played his role in that and in too many other places and all his rotten disciples too. What a nasty, slithering, little cunt and what a sniveling bunch of little fuckheads. I would piss on every one of their graves and kick the headstones down.

This very topic makes me angry. It pisses me off what a bunch of bald, textbook bashers have done to very real countries with their drivel and it is drivel and it is discredited.

[VictorCharlie]

Again Miles you aren't talking about a free market in any of your examples and you are free to think as you will about Friedman but like I said he is the most esteemed economist of our time and the last 50 years have if anything shown that Hayek/Friedman models are superior. Like I said before deregulation is not the same as a free market. Ultimately your world view of what freedom is makes you see the concept of free market only how it can benefit business and not how it benefits the common man. A true free market is the great equalizer where centrally planned economies cannot help but leverage the system against the private citizen.

[Gandalf]

I believe the best way to run an economy is to have a healthy middle ground. I cannot support a freemarket as it impossible. I cannot support Communism as it is impossible. Variations on socialist principles are perfectly valid though. They represent the optimal middle ground, the ideal compromise. Idealists will never accept them though.

I will add more to this thread tomorrow as I'm drinking and not sure sure I can handle a lucid debate.

[Kirkland Laing]

They think Obama is going to win North Carolina? WOW...I mean, I'm not going to attempt to tell professionals how to do their jobs but WOW.

Florida: Suffolk - Used a sample size of 600 registered voters, not likely voters. Also it does not state wheather the voters asked were Republican, Democrat, Independent or other. It also mentions that 52% of those asked figured Obama would dominate Romney in the debates....well I'd venture to guess that this past debate has shaken their confidence in that at the VERY least.

Nevada: We Ask America - Sample size 1,152 of likely voters, doesn't state the political affiliation of the voters so you can't sift through the material at all.

New Hampshire: Public Policy Polling - sample size 862 likely voters and then one with 401 likely voters as well. They too provide 0 details about the voters although I'm certain they asked (having participated in polling before I would know)

North Carolina: SurveyUSA - +/- 4.2% they call the poll 49% for Obama, 47% for Romney meaning it's a race within the margin of error. The WRAL poll had Romney leading 45% to 44%. Also it says Romney is winning Independent voters & 15% of democrat voter are NOT supporting Obama's reelection

There's a sample size of 589 in that other poll

Here's the deal, the sample sizes are too small, the political affiliation is not reported on, and lots of those races are within the margin of error OR the polls had been done prior to the first debate which I believe changes things SIGNIFICANTLY

Having read this it's clear that polling and statistics are two of the many millions of things that you don't know anything about. I'm not even going to get into it with you, you're not going to be able to follow it anyway.