Obama Won

[Paul Stevens]

Americans sick of being $10 Trillion in debt

Indeed. And I am not too sure Mr. Obama is the
man to reduce this debt. We shall see. And hope.
He has a bit of a handicap at the starting line.

[linflas]

i don't feel ashamed of confessing here that i actually cried when i woke up at 5am and saw hundreds of americans in the streets expressing their joy and happyness.

i really think that something already changed into everyone's mind.

[zoom]

ok, new things learnt! Maybe germans try to be overcorrect
[/offtopic]

[MasterWuuf]

Wow! I must say I'm surprised at the interest from everyone on this topic.

I think we'll have to wait a few years to know just how smart/stupid George W. Bush might have been. Sadly, we suffer from the news coverage syndrome.

I still know so little about Obama, so I'll just have to wait and see what happens in the next year or two.

I think Bush's 'axis of evil' comments probably left a bad taste in some people's mouths. It's hard to retract harsh comments.

I thought McCain's public speech in Arizona was very well thought out.
I think he probably scored points for the equivalent of a VI GOR potion, for sure.

A couple of younger black guys at my night job were shouting "We're taking over." Another statement was "You have to listen to me now because we have a black president."

YIPES! I'm glad for them, since they surely were hoping Obama would win, but reaction is a reality. I'm hoping this will be a time of healing, rather than an opportunity to act like the gladiators in Spartacus (making their old slave owners fight to the death).

Hey, I never owned a slave, black or white.
Well, my precious wife has worked her fingers to the bone for our family,
but she's done that willingly.

Thanks for all the input on this thread. Strong minds with strong opinions. I've never enjoyed 'mealy-mouthed' communication in the first place.

[Roquen]

Wow! Lot of topics here….the following will be semi-rambling, so forgive me (I’m too self-interested to invest too much time.)

SUCINUM:
[Obama wants to make] social market economy like we have in germany.
No he doesn’t, he basically want to revert back to pre-Bush years, fix some broken existing programs and add health-care for the poor. Ultimately not a major shift.

It's a shame for a rich country to not have this, pure capitalism can't work nowadays.
The US is not a pure capitalist system and it works just fine, when there are reasonable regulations and governmental oversight.

there are people whose job is to open doors, pack your shoppings or keep shops open during all the night with very few customers
And this is a bad thing? These are jobs too shameful to have? If you shop at one of these places, you pay a little more for the extra service. The consumer chooses.

Money for the social system strenghtens the whole economy, because it is spent very quickly.

Let's examine that in terms of some national debts. The first number is per-person(USD), second is per-person(EUROS) and the third is the ranking of national debt as a percentage of GDP (high is good, low is bad as is '1' is the country with the highest percentage of debt/GDP);

Code: Select all

US:       $35,222   27,400  27 
France:    23,661   18,404  23
Germany:	25,281   19,664  20  
Canada:    18,807   14,631  22

So the US is in the least worst shape of all these countries, even after spending (at least) 600 billion on shameful war.
Or check it out for yourself - national debt clocks:
US: http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
France: http://cluaran.free.fr/dette.html
Germany: http://www.steuerzahler.de/webcom/show_ ... -33/i.html
Canada: http://www.ndir.com/SI/education/debt.shtml


ADAMO:
A better gross break-down would be rural vs. urban.

PAUL STEVENS:
Good for you from admitting for voting for “Bush”.

COWS:
I have to strongly disagree with the entire basis of cows original statement.

The massive French coverage of the US election cycle is because "Mad Dog US" might attack us? Hardly and you can replace France pretty much any country. Ok, let think about the highest candidates: Venezuela??, Chavez has certainly tried to provoke open hostilities, Iran??, Syria?? Maybe some Venezuelans might be a little nervous that their highly enlightened and fearless leader might go a step too far, but the percentage of citizens in these countries that actually 'think' that the US might attack them is virtually zero.

Ok, it not a "direct attack against me argument", but the "all us civilized people hate needless killing, wars, etc." argument. Right: let all ask ourselves some questions:

*) How many terrorist attack have there been in Sri Lanka in the three years? If any, how many civilians dead?
*) Has there been any ethnic or religious cleaning in southern Thailand?
*) A million questions are possible about Africa...ok how about very simple one: "Somalia? How many children stoned to dead in the last month? How many aid workers killed in the last six?"

These were off the top of my head and a full list of recent events would be insanely long. Don't like some of my examples because they are not performed by states? What difference does it really make? You want state-sponsored examples? Do a little web-searching…you’ll find plenty.

Darfur...what about half a million dead because of the conflict and it took movie stars to push it (briefly) into popular knowledge. But everything’s cool now, because worldwide (read Western) media isn't talking about it. Right?

As for the list of countries, well it would take forever to dissect and most are not appropriate to your stated argument of “[attacking] anyone over resources under the banner of righteousness”. And why isn’t Grenada there? Canada had just built an airport, the invasion was condemned by the UN and even by the UK (how often does that happen???). “The War in Iraq: Episode 2” was seriously f*cked. However there’s little condemnation about “Episode 1”, which was just as f*cked if you dig under the surface. Why is that? Oh yeah, everybody had a role in that one.

Let's face the fact that in general humans are motivated by mainly self interest and we mostly care about things that we perceive to effect us. The better off we are, the more time we have to spend on things which entertain or appeal to us, but we're still principally driven by self interest. What we perceive to effect us, is of course, dependent on what we happen to know about and the vast majority of the world (those that are luck enough to have any access to info) don't have time to go beyond whatever is spoon-fed them by their government and local medias. Most of those that do have the time? They don’t care or can’t be bothered. Another pretty face of human nature is our need to “look-down on”, despise or down-right-hate some group or (better yet) groups of people to boost our self esteem or to blame for our hardships. (A tangent on human nature: I found the NYT article: “The Moral Instinct” an interesting read http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magaz ... ogy-t.html)

So why would I say the world in interested in US elections but the reverse isn't true? It is quite simple: the world economy is tightly tied with that of the US. In terms of the GDP the US is over 25% of the world’s total. Ever noticed how world markets react to changes in the US market? If you’re poor goat herder in the Atlas Mountains of Morocco, what's going on in US is perceived to effect your life. On the other hand changes in foreign governments never have any real effect on US citizen, except when they have a personal interest. The worlds governments are interested, the wealthy of the given country are as well, therefore the local medias talk about it, etc, etc. Who’s the second largest in terms of GDP? Answer: Japan. Now: “Who’s the Prime Minster of Japan?”

"Fantastic and enlightened people" are mostly overrated. The highly educated are frequently as ignorant (in the proper meaning of the word) as those with virtual no formal education. Ask most "Fantastic and enlightened people" about world affairs and the majority are just as clueless as your average “fill-in-the-blank with some type of person it’s okay to look-down-on in a smiling “pat-on-their-head” kind of way”.

Let me give you some examples of silly anti-Americanism from people I know and love:

Petroleum Engineer in a high management pos in BIG petro-company: "All Americans are uneducated and cultureless, expect the few I've met."

A mild variant from many people (virtually all university grads): "All American films are sugar-sweet tripe for the stupid average American.". Yet you check out their DVD collection and it's about 95% US films and only big-budget no-brainers. Ask them about any non mass production US film, and they haven't a clue.

The number of rants-and-raves I’ve heard about the “evil, culture killing, terrible for your health” McDonalds is one of my all time favorites. That’s because France is where they sell the most hamburgers per person in the world, and there’s a European burger chain that nobody complains about and (surprise, surprise) same food, same gimmicks.

These are minor right? And they are pointless, petty and “pat-myself-on-the-back” superior. I could make a huge list, including nasty anti-Americanism statements, but I find the petty much more telling.

As for Canadians being seen as “passivity tree-huggers”: I’ve never run across that, what I’ve always thought and have heard echoed from others is more like: “Wow! A nation that has learned civics session of: My rights end where someone else’s begins…and is always happy about it.”

[Joramun]

I'm happy that's Obama.
He is a pedagogue (see his speech on racism 18th March '08), seems keen to listen and discuss, had good and stable strategy.
McCain fought the campaign dirty (bad strategy) and chose a bad vice-president (bad decision) and talked about a indefinite Irak presence.

People shouldn't get so heated up about who's evil : everyone is.
European colonialism (and I include US and Canada in that) resulted in the death of 99.999 % of the native american population, first passively by diseases (apparently some Native American populations were already cut by 98% even before they met Europeans, because of the diseases brought by Columbus to the continent) then by methodical push-back and extermination. Both in Canada and the US, but also in Mexico and South America. (Spanish Conquistadores would probably all be convicted for crime against humanity nowadays).
And you can find similar situations everywhere. The strong always killed the weak. And only recently does this rule starts to change : now, the strong just rules the weak, in a soft manner most of the time. That's quite a progress.

But the election of Barack Obama is a step beyond :
- it's the election of someone who doesn't treat the voters like morons ("Joe the Plummer" ...)
- who's black in a country of slavery and not so long ago, apartheid

Now, I can just hope that France will once get such a president. (I also consider A. Merkel in Germany to be a pedagogic and intelligent leader, even if she's less charismatic than Obama)

[sucinum]

It's a shame for a rich country to not have this, pure capitalism can't work nowadays.
The US is not a pure capitalist system and it works just fine, when there are reasonable regulations and governmental oversight.

The social system of the US is a shame compared to their wealth. And next to that, a social system is basically for free. If you give poor people cash, they will spend it and keep the economy running.

there are people whose job is to open doors, pack your shoppings or keep shops open during all the night with very few customers
And this is a bad thing? These are jobs too shameful to have? If you shop at one of these places, you pay a little more for the extra service. The consumer chooses.

Yes, that is very shameful if this is your main profession. If you help out to get some extra cash next to your regular job or to finance studying, that's ok. If you have 2-3 such bad jobs and nothing else, it simply stinks. Even though badly payed, those jobs are not worth their payment. They have established as standard because large corporates are so rich they can afford spending some cash for extra service, but such jobs do not add to the GPD.

So the US is in the least worst shape of all these countries, even after spending (at least) 600 billion on shameful war.
Or check it out for yourself - national debt clocks:
US: http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
France: http://cluaran.free.fr/dette.html
Germany: http://www.steuerzahler.de/webcom/show_ ... -33/i.html
Canada: http://www.ndir.com/SI/education/debt.shtml

That are irrelevant numbers. Almost every state (and person) on this world has debts and this goes back and forth. But that are only numbers for the accounting department. These debts will never be paid without replacing them by new debts. That is basic economy. Debts are numbers, what counts is the cash flow.
Also a war doesn't cost money. Money is spent their in 3 ways:
Soldiers: these people would have needed cash anyways and they would be unemployed otherwise (social system).
Arms: Keeps the arms industrie, which emplys hundreds of people, workers as well as scientists, busy.
Reperations: If you rebuild a state you have defeated, they grow rich enough to buy stuff and that keeps the economy running (like in Germany with the Marshall plan, that also paid off).

Of course i wouldn't deny that the US is better off than Germany for example. Germany exports loads and loads of goods, mainly for the reason that Germans themselves can't afford them. A worker for Mercedes doesn't drive a Mercedes, he drives a Hyundai or something. That is a very fragile building, because luxury is the first which will be cut off if people are faced with a recession. You can see that german car producers lose lots of money due to the crisis now, the expensiver their cars are (Mercedes, BMW), the more.

[Gambit37]

This is a generally respectful thread, thank you everyone. But there are one or two slightly personal negative comments directed at other people, which is hardly unexpected when discussing a topic such as politics Please remember to keep your discussion about the issues raised, and not the people who raised them.

Me: I'm staying out of it.

[Zyx]

the “evil, culture killing, terrible for your health” McDonalds is one of my all time favorites. That’s because France is where they sell the most hamburgers per person in the world

What?! I'd like to know your sources on this one. Besides are you saying that anything bad you hear about MacDonald's image is originated by a conspiracy in France? Or just the fact that's in France, not another country, that we allegedly eat so much hamburgers, explains why MacDonald receives such a calomny? I don't understand the reasoning here.


It was interesting to read the variety of perceptions but the tone is becoming unpleasant now.
But that's because all of you are a bunch of nazis, anyway.

Spoiler

Can I get my Goldwin point?

[beowuuf]

That smart alec makes it really hard to discuss WWII on the internet

[MasterWuuf]

I'm noticing all the 'what Obama is going to do' theme, running though many conversations of late.

I remember what "Joe LAST FIVE presidents' were going to do.

Ronald Reagan is the only one I remember really 'doing' some of those things.
Odd that all I've heard about him from 'democrat folks' is that he didn't do anything about abortion, so he's no better than the democrats.

Getting American politicians to 'go along' with what the president really wants to do??? Hmmm. There MUST be SOMETHING more difficult than that.

[Joramun]

It was interesting to read the variety of perceptions but the tone is becoming unpleasant now.
But that's because all of you are a bunch of nazis, anyway.

Spoiler

Can I get my Goldwin point?

Yeah, but you'd need about 175 to be on the "Conflux IV - Nazis invade the Undercity" scoreboard.

[Paul Stevens]

Also a war doesn't cost money.

I don't think I ever heard that opinion before.
Interesting. Would the folks in Russia express
this opinion during WWII?

[sucinum]

Also a war doesn't cost money.

I don't think I ever heard that opinion before.
Interesting. Would the folks in Russia express
this opinion during WWII?

I'm talking of modern "we drive our tanks around and show our arms"-wars and only look at the economic side.
And sometimes it's unavoidable to show military presence to calm things down, like in Kosovo. Without american intervention, that could have turned more ugly.

[Gambit37]

However you define a "war", it costs money.

Now, let's get back to the point of the thread please.

[Joramun]

Now, let's get back to the point of the thread please.

You mean Nazis ?

The point of the thread is, we're all happy the election is over, because now the news will turn to more serious subjects, like, erm, how Britney Spears is growing her hair back ?

[sucinum]

However you define a "war", it costs money.

Everything costs money, but you get something in exchange when waging a war.

[Gambit37]

You get something in exchange whenever you spend money (at least, you should!), so your statement doesn't make sense. Did you mean to use the word 'but'? How does this clarify anything? You've just confused it even more.

You need to be clearer in your statements about what you mean if you want people to understand you. You said "A war doesn't cost money". Now you say it does. Thoroughly confusing!

I think what you mean is that a war costs MUCH MORE than just money (ie, human life), is that correct?

[Broken_Paladin]

Obama is pledging to have all the troops pulled out in 16 months, anyone think this is plausible?

[Zyx]

I think sucinum meant you get the war for free, since it keeps unemployed persons busy who would have asked for cash anyway, (this time they'll have to kill and threathen to earn it, ha!) besides the benefits of destroying as the best way to create wealth on the long term, and that investing money, people and efforts to construct bombs that will explode when achieved is the best way to spend your money, any other use of money is costy in comparison.
Or something like that.
Or not.

[Jan]

A year ago I thought the best option would be H. Clinton (president) with B. Obama (vice-president). But as the months passed I started to realise that Mr. Obama has not only SOMETHING to say (I mean that he has an IDEA), but that he is also able to do it, and, most importantly, that he has a lot of energy and enthusiasm and independent thinking. He really convinced me he is the best option. So, congratulations, America!

I especially like his commitment to a mass support for use of renewable resources - as it can solve not only the huge environmental problems we face, but also many other problems, including the total global mess made by GWBush and his "war on terror" and related mistakes in foreign and "defense" policy. I mean that being independent on imports of energy and raw materials is the best way for the US (and the EU) to solve the problems related to the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela etc. - we wouldn't have to worry about these regimes AT ALL if we were self-sufficient in energy supply. I know there is a long way to go, but I hope Mr. Obama is able to lead us - and, yes, I think that under his presidency the US can show the way to the rest of the world - once again (as it did many times before). I think that under his presidency, the US will restore its close ties with the EU and UN, will use more "soft" power, and will be able to win the "hearts and minds" of many people globally.

I'm afraid only of two things: (a) that someone might assassinate him (I'm afraid even to think about it...); (b) the expectations (not only in the US but in the whole world) are too high, and (given the forthcoming global economic slump) he cannot fulfil all these expectations in his first term.

[Jan]

From a (very) narrow economic perspective, leading a war really increases country's GDP in a short-term usually (because of investments into the army) - so it costs you money, but "increases" economy. The same applies to natural disasters (you have to rebuild infrastructure after floods etc.).

However, from a long-term perspective things are "a bit" different.. not talking about moral aspects... yuck!

[beowuuf]

True, war is costly in money terms but sadly provides the most economic stimulation too. It is the most demanding in terms of reliable working tech along with medical and aviation. Those last two do not generate anything like the same revenue since at their heart they are creating items that must last and be reused, whereas most weapons of war have a greater risk of destruction, if they are not disposable in the first place. Also, war and funding it is the only thing a nation is compelled to do - a nation's people can only force a government to provide transportation and healthcare to a certain extent. To the point that companies that deal in weapons can sell to even the poorest countries that cannot afford medication nor have the resources for any significant transportation.

Warfare has always been at the cutting edge of generating or honed the greatest advances in technology (partially because of the requirements, partially because of the imperatives on funding). I do believe that the arms trade and standing army is certainly a cornerstone of american economics, despite the reciprocal drain on public and national funds.

[Jan]

Yes.

Well - many people believe that the greatest advances in technology were made thanks (or due, to be precise) to wars - simply during wars. That's true to some extent. But, on the other hand, many advances were made during (economic) crises as well - remember the 1930s (monoplane transport aircrafts in the US... and streamlined cars in Czechoslovakia, by the way... etc.) or 1970s after the oil shocks (computers and electronics and miniaturisation etc.). So, economic crises often work as stimuli, as a stress factor pushing the technology forward (as in biology).

The point I wanted to make is that the combination of (a) current economic crisis and (b) Mr. Obama's innovative thinking (and doing, I hope) can lead to another technological (in a very broad sense) "leap forward" (energy efficiency, renewable sources etc.).

[sucinum]

From a (very) narrow economic perspective, leading a war really increases country's GDP in a short-term usually (because of investments into the army) - so it costs you money, but "increases" economy. The same applies to natural disasters (you have to rebuild infrastructure after floods etc.).

However, from a long-term perspective things are "a bit" different.. not talking about moral aspects... yuck!

I was never talking about moral, only about economy. And even if stuff is destroyed in war, that doesn't really matter, because as it stands now, we produce way too much goods anyways.

More than half of our good production world-wide is rather consumed than used (in sense of required), the average life span of technical stuff (mobiles, computers) is around 3-4 years, and even expensive stuff like cars is exchanged before they it's broken, only because of fashion or to represent wealth. That's not very different to weapons, next to blowing up stuff, they also have a passive use.

Of course the world would be a better place if we disarmed everything, produced only what we need and cooperated worldwide in science. This way, everyone would have enough of everything and would have to work only 3-4 hours a day. But this won't happen (too soon) and will have other side effects (like boredom and demotivation). But you can't take Utopia as premise.

[Zyx]

War is international so you can't consider USA alone. Not all countries are consumption societies like in your reasoning. (Iraq or Afghanistan are not for example). So destroying their stuff probably matters to them.
Besides, from destroying "stuff" you continue your reasoning about "fashion goods", a small, irrelevant category comparing to the economical damage of wars (not mentioning the moral and humane point of view).
Houses, schools, hospitals and roads destroyed during the gulf wars are not just appearance or fashion goods for example.
Mutilated persons and broken lives are also costy, they won't produce as much wealth and they will indeed need more money than before to survive.
But I guess you would answer it will give work to doctors so it's a good economical boost? Or that destroying houses generate employment in the construction industry?
In this case, I think there is a confusion about what is money. Money is not wealth, it's what you can buy with it.
If you generate damage that will require money to be repaired, you have not created wealth, even if the money have moved from a pocket to another.

In my opinion, wars are only economically beneficial to the people of the arms industry, but this benefice has two nasty hidden prices: the money was collected from taxes that would otherwise been used for something positive for the society, and somewhere in one of the country at war, somebody will suffer a loss.
Wars can also be economically beneficial to the winner if he pillages, robs, or forces economic agreements on the looser. Like with oil in Kuwait and Iraq.(4th and 5th greatest reserves of the world)
But then again, someone is loosing what the other gains in the bargain.



Oh well. Enough with my opinions. I'd rather hear yours!

BTW, the discussion about war should be split from this thread.

[beowuuf]

Money is, sadly, an IOU and nothing more. And it's an IOU whose worth is separated from what you did to generate it and is treated as part of a points system in strange complex games of chance by

Neither of my computers is stable enough right now for me to take on the task of splitting this topic!

[Roquen]

If my post was seen as a personal attack, I'm sorry that wasn't my intent. I did intend to throw some gas on the fire to stimulate a debate.

What?! I'd like to know your sources on this one. Besides are you saying that anything bad you hear about MacDonald's image is originated by a conspiracy in France? Or just the fact that's in France, not another country, that we allegedly eat so much hamburgers, explains why MacDonald receives such a calomny? I don't understand the reasoning here.

My point was: "Why is McDonalds evil and Quick not?" From my perspective they are exactly the same. Surely you've heard the same thing.

There are only two answers that I can see:
1) The worldwide disastrous effect the Bush administration has had on peoples perceptions about Americans and all things thought to originate from the US, which has made it socially acceptable to say outrageously anti-american statements.
2) The fact that McDonalds has become a worldwide symbol of globalization.

In an interview in 2007, Jose Bove (of all people) said: "French people are not against McDonald's. They are against the Bush administration." So I'm not the only person to lean toward answer number 1 verses number 2. (Non-French members: Bove as an anti-globalization/anti genetically modified food activist so you'd except him to answer 2 instead.)

There were two sources (both slightly old): an article when "Super Size Me" was released in France and a Swiss documentary on perceptions of globalization, so the numbers could have changed.

My point was not to attack France (look at my location) but to attack people in general for saying one thing and then doing another or for allowing friends and/or family members make gross generalizations about any group of people without calling them on it.

Personally I don't like MD. Not because they are an evil company, but because the food sucks. So I "vote" against them and haven't step inside one since 1986.

But that's because all of you are a bunch of nazis, anyway.

Oh yeah? Well: Your sister's so ugly, they had to tie a steak around her neck to get the dog to play with her.

[MasterWuuf]

Oh yeah? Well: Your sister's so ugly, they had to tie a steak around her neck to get the dog to play with her.

Yeah, but is she so ugly they had to tie a cat around her neck to get the dog to play with her?

Not THAT'S ugly with a capital OO.

[Roquen]

MasterWuuf: That's too cold! WRT: needing to wait a few years to see if Bush is or isn't stupid:

"He's SOOO stupid, he got hit by a parked car".

Obama is pledging to have all the troops pulled out in 16 months, anyone think this is plausible?

I think the more important question is: "Would it be reasonable?" and I'm not sure of the answer.

I was vehemently opposed to the war...before it happened. Now it's done, and I think that the US should do whatever is needed make Iraq a semi-stable nation. If the US pulls out and a civil/ethnic conflict breaks out...well we'll likely look back fondly to the good-old days of Saddam Hussein's rule.

But my mama always told me: "You make a mess!? You better clean it up!"

sucinum:

OBAMA'S PROGRAM: I was attempting to make a couple of points. The first being that the Obama economic and social program is being misrepresented, at least here in France and from your comments it is as well in Germany. This is understandable as everyone wants to profit from the coverage and "spin-it" to their advantage. Where the reality is that the most economically "liberal" (French term, English would be laissez-faire) member of the UMP (French right-wing ruling party) would feel guilty about dreaming to proposing it. The English term is in French, because the school of thought is considered French in origin. The economist "Frederic Bastiat" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat was born about five miles from where I'm typing. Regardless of your social/economic leanings, I'd suggest people to read his "Candlemakers Petition" or the "Negative Railroad".

WAR: I brought up Bastiat because his "Broken Window Fallacy" has been used to argue against the notion of "War being good for the economy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of ... ken_window

You follow up (on Obama's perceived program) by stating that social policies strengthen an economy. Personally I think that is a 'fault' in your argument because it is difficult to back-up (as is any direct cause-and-effect situation). I think a better argument would be: "It's a shame that such a wealth nation, which thinks of itself as the 'land of opportunity', does have not have policies to help insure that dream". That's hard to argue with, other than "Screw the needy". I think that well balanced social programs do strengthen an economy in the long term, but it is very hard to prove and everyone will have a different perception of what well balanced means. Note: my bringing up national debts was merely to get you to defend the position, not to say that any system is better or worse than the other.

You also contradict yourself in your arguments: you use the notion that increasing the "velocity of money" when given to the poor helps the economy and turn around and say "Shameful jobs" don't increase the GDP. Increasing the velocity of money is always good for an economy and these bad jobs move money faster. And the GDP is simply one of many metrics used to measure the economic health of a nation (I probably should have used the Big Mac index instead).

SHAMEFUL JOBS: If you argued that "It's shameful for people to have to work for misery wages." I might agree with you, but the notion that any honest job is shameful?? Never. And who judges? Why is packing groceries more shameful than: serving food, drinks, sweeping floors, picking up garbage, being an investment banker, an actor, an astronaut, etc, etc. I think opening doors and greeting people with a smile has a bigger impact on society than some post-doc student researching the "influence of chamber music in 16th century literature". Research of this nature is fine, but it impacts virtually nobody. Back to grocery stores: These people also help the elderly get food they can't reach and help them take their food to their cars, which helps these people live independent lives. Most stores will let people phone in orders and have the food delivered by these people. As I mentioned before, the consumer pays slighter higher price for it...they can vote for or against the system by choosing where they shop. As for corporations, if they didn't think that providing this extra service increased their profit, these jobs probably wouldn't exist. Personally I enjoy going to a cafe and being served. It isn't necessary by your reasoning, I could just a easily go order and pay for myself, but the two experience are different.

NATIONAL DEBT: The notion that national debt is merely numbers on a spreadsheet is dangerous. Virtually everyone knows that an individual attempting to “float” debts (has you have suggested for nations) is driving towards a brick wall and accelerating, given that interest grows at an exponential rate. The only difference is that nations have deeper pockets so it takes a lot longer to hit the wall…but they will be going much faster. If national debt is hand waving magic , why did Canada go through such efforts to get theirs under control? In an idealized situation, where a country is incurring new debt merely to cover the interest of some old debt and not make payments to reduce that original debt, it will reach the point where the entire economy is working to secure loans. Of course that can’t happen because it is beyond the wall.