The US Election

[Demetrius]

The US System is flawed, I agree; However, The realities of my Home Country, where seperation of power is a principle in name only, makes me wonder if I were better of if we just adopted the US System without any Ajustments. In Germany, the we vote for our parties every 4 Years, the winner controls both Legislative and Executive, plus large parts of the Judikative, while other the last few Years they succeeded in ingoring the rest of it pretty well. Single Members of the Bundestag have basically no say in what they vote for, as long as the party wants a different decission. Money feeds our politicians just as much as it does in America, but a quick google search won't give you any kind of correct picture as to where it comes from and what it amounts to. At least the republican Governor of New Jersey can praise the democratic President if he chooses (whatever selfish reasons he might have for doing so). Going against the Party line in that way is near impossible hear. So I don't like to judge America from above as if I or my country were any better of.

Dollar might well collapse; if so, the Euro will join him - heck, even if the Dollar pulls through, the Euro will break apart in some way. However, I don't see how the politics of tomorrow diminish the importance of politics today. Whoever wins this race will face the crisis you are pointing out - for better or worse. I like to look and see who it will be; helps preparing for it, same way as knowing how Germany will act over the next 5 Years helps me preparing for what might well come to be. (and damn if the Germans don't know how to make the best of a situation while exploiting others).

As for Alternatives, I see none but a well structured Republic on democratic principles with a severe seperation of powers in place - not that the current western governments fit that discription. If you know of a practical alternative, I would like to know about it, as I am not really sure whether most of the western world has a chance to achieve this "ideal" from where we are today.

[Lateralthinking1]

The US System is flawed, I agree; However, The realities of my Home Country, where seperation of power is a principle in name only, makes me wonder if I were better of if we just adopted the US System without any Ajustments. In Germany, the we vote for our parties every 4 Years, the winner controls both Legislative and Executive, plus large parts of the Judikative, while other the last few Years they succeeded in ingoring the rest of it pretty well. Single Members of the Bundestag have basically no say in what they vote for, as long as the party wants a different decission. Money feeds our politicians just as much as it does in America, but a quick google search won't give you any kind of correct picture as to where it comes from and what it amounts to. At least the republican Governor of New Jersey can praise the democratic President if he chooses (whatever selfish reasons he might have for doing so). Going against the Party line in that way is near impossible hear. So I don't like to judge America from above as if I or my country were any better of.

Dollar might well collapse; if so, the Euro will join him - heck, even if the Dollar pulls through, the Euro will break apart in some way. However, I don't see how the politics of tomorrow diminish the importance of politics today. Whoever wins this race will face the crisis you are pointing out - for better or worse. I like to look and see who it will be; helps preparing for it, same way as knowing how Germany will act over the next 5 Years helps me preparing for what might well come to be. (and damn if the Germans don't know how to make the best of a situation while exploiting others).

As for Alternatives, I see none but a well structured Republic on democratic principles with a severe seperation of powers in place - not that the current western governments fit that discription. If you know of a practical alternative, I would like to know about it, as I am not really sure whether most of the western world has a chance to achieve this "ideal" from where we are today.

Interesting. Perceptions of these things vary according to economic conditions, both national and personal. 25 or more years ago, we could look at the systems reasonably comfortably and ask how they could be improved. Any accompanying outrage was mainly on behalf of an identifiable section of the population known as the "have nots". In many cases, the extent of such feelings depended on an individual's proximity to those. For some who had no such proximity, and were not overly conscious of societal need, systemic improvement was not about necessity. It was more of a question of fine-tuning something inherently good.

Now that economic problems are deep and wide, many have fears about the present. Large numbers worry about their children in the future. In this light, the political systems can often be viewed as having hardly any virtue. But unified Germany's mixed electoral system is not fundamentally different from the days of Brandt, Schmidt and Kohl in the West. It wasn't very long ago that it could do absolutely nothing wrong in the eyes of many people. Ask the people on the Clapham omnibus if they are satisfied with the British electoral system and all will say no. Ask them if they would prefer to be in North Korea and not one would say yes.

An opinion poll for ABC News and the Washington Post puts the two candidates at 48%, with independents split evenly on 46%. Campaigning is fierce in Ohio which no Republican President has ever lost - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20196459. In its commentary, the Post confirms that it is a tie but with Obama having the edge in Electoral College votes. It also looks at Congress which is significant to any President's ability to be effective. Despite record levels of disapproval , the status quo is likely — Democrats in charge of the Senate; Republicans in charge of the House - http://www.washingtonpost.com/.

[Demetrius]

Interesting. Perceptions of these things vary according to economic conditions, both national and personal. 25 or more years ago, we could look at the systems reasonably comfortably and ask how they could be improved. Any accompanying outrage was mainly on behalf of an identifiable section of the population known as the "have nots". In many cases, the extent of such feelings depended on an individual's proximity to those. For some who had no such proximity, and were not overly conscious of societal need, systemic improvement was not about necessity. It was more of a question of fine-tuning something inherently good.

Now that economic problems are deep and wide, many have fears about the present. Large numbers worry about their children in the future. In this light, the political systems can often be viewed as having hardly any virtue. But unified Germany's mixed electoral system is not fundamentally different from the days of Brandt, Schmidt and Kohl in the West. It wasn't very long ago that it could do absolutely nothing wrong in the eyes of many people. Ask the people on the Clapham omnibus if they are satisfied with the British electoral system and all will say no. Ask them if they would prefer to be in North Korea and not one would say yes.

Indeed; I would rather live in Germany of today than in North Korea or the previous 20th Century German monstrosities. Still, I wanted to illustrate why I don't like to dismiss the US system entirely, despite its faults. However, not all problems people have with the way things are stem from economical difficulties; since the late 90s, personal freedoms in Germany have been pushed around for security reasons - mirroring the development in other nations, no doubt. Besides, a lot of things we struggle with today stem from the time and politics of Brandt, Schmidt and Kohl, so I wouldn't endorse any of them fully, either

Back to the topic at hand, the US will make it through these tough times, even if the dollar breaks down. If I had to choose an American Politician to see this struggle through, I would by no means pick Romney; Obama with a republican leaning congress seems still the likely - and preferable - result. Doesn't sound like a "real leader" scenario, but then again, I have some ideological problems with real/strong leaders, history nerd that I am.

[Resurrection Man]

"My prediction: the US dollar will collapse in March 2013 and there will be total mayhem in the western world."

How nice to find some blunt realism. Some of my colleagues would agree with you: I think it will be at least six months later. I also think that GB will weather the storm better than most.

I've not had time to read through the whole thread. Can you shed any light why you (and others) think this will happen and what the effect it will have on us here in the UK? Should I be making the armour-plated shutters for the windows now? I jest but you get my drift.

[Simon]

I've not had time to read through the whole thread. Can you shed any light why you (and others) think this will happen and what the effect it will have on us here in the UK? Should I be making the armour-plated shutters for the windows now? I jest but you get my drift.

I do. Many commentators and analysts believe that the QE and other measures taken by the US were foolish and only put off the day when the whole house of cards will fall down. The reasons for people thinking this will be next spring are varied; I expect if you google something like "when will the US collapse come?" you'll get all sorts of stuff, some rational and some not. The reason I think it will be later than next spring is that in my work I haven't yet seen the signs of "preparation" that I think will come, though it's possible I'm missing them. Saying more about this here isn't really appropriate.

As regards the effect on Britain, it will depend largely on two things: the exposure of our own financial institutions and the level of panic that appears in the population. Whilst this govt. is unpopular and not fully trusted, due to some crassly awful policy decisions and cockups, nonetheless the measures it has taken have helped stabilise things. It should and could have done much more, but we all know that. If mass panic is avoided, we should be able to get down to coping with the new situation quite well.

Personally, I think that the western economies, once the collapses have happened, will settle into ways more akin to the older systems, of localised trade and local barter. We shall all have to draw in our horns, reduce our wants, and stick with what we really need. So imported kiwi fruit will give way to British apples, no more strawberries in January, jet holidays to Spain will become fortnights at Dawlish, commuting 100 miles along motorways to work will stop, etc. etc. And we'll be a lot healthier for it, if materially poorer.

Britain, of all the bigger economies, once the financial sector has stabilised, is best placed to cope with all this. Provided that the EU collapses as an institution and the whole wasteful and useless layer of lawyers, politicians and bureaucracy that has been bleeding us white for so long disappears with it, which I think will happen, we have enough land, fish and natural resources to just about manage.* Local trading across the channel/Irish sea will also continue, to the benefit of both us and our nearest neighbours, and I expect that with the disintegration of the CAP and other such artificial barriers to sensible production and trade, life will be simpler and easier to manage.

Despite some tensions in some areas, caused largely by unregulated inward migration, Britain does have an excellent community spirit. It's perhaps more obvious in villages, but in my times in towns and cities I've seen it, too. That's one of our strengths, I believe, which also will help us along.

We'll see!

-------------

* This, incidentally, is why I am so against the EU. Not at all because I don't like "foreigners", or because I don't want to work and co-operate with other nations. I do. But because the whole (good) idea of co-operative trade has been taken over and corrupted by thick layers of administration, lawyers and political apparatchiks who produce a very little, find jobs for themselves and their friends, farm out massive contracts with little check on validity or justification, let alone on result, and suck up billions of Euros in what is essentially an unnecessary system of moving money from one place to another.

[Budapest]

I've not had time to read through the whole thread. Can you shed any light why you (and others) think this will happen and what the effect it will have on us here in the UK? Should I be making the armour-plated shutters for the windows now? I jest but you get my drift.

As Simon has pointed out, it's all a house of cards. They (meaning mostly the USA and UK) keep printing money they haven't got, which is politely called Quantitive Easing (QE), which is one of the most reckless and irresponsible actions you can take in such a financial crisis. They are gambling on the markets starting to show real growth again, which of course is not happening.

With regard to doom and gloom scenarios, it's worth looking at places like Spain and Greece, where, despite varying degrees of social unrest, they are starting to adapt to a collapsed economy by local trading, bartering etc (you really don't need much to live and be reasonably happy, despite what the advertisers/corporations tell you). Iceland is the best one; I love Iceland: they defaulted on all their debts, put all their bankers in jail, introduced strict regulations on the banking industry and basically started again from scratch. They had a rough few first years but are now starting to get back on their feet again.

It's also worth bearing in mind that most of these financial crisis come down to the cost of borrowing money, and money has no intrinsic value whatsoever.

It's completely mad.

[Budapest]

Oh, and let me also add that I've just opened a US bank account in dollars, knowing full well that it could all go belly-up sometime soon. I had to have a US dollar account for reasons I won't go into here. It's a mad, mad world. Here's Francis Poulenc's take on it, Valse in c major...

[teamsaint]

It is indeed completely mad....house of cards..kicking the can down the road.... call it what you will.I would love to see dave or gideon really explain QE as a sensible policy that makes sense...and what the "money" really is.

FWIW I think Simon's view of how the future may be is entirely feasible...Timescale..anybody's guess...
I do hope when he sees "signs of preparation" he shares them with his chums on here.
Perhaps the powers at the top can avoid collapse...that's if it suits them of course.

Strange days indeed...

[Nick Armstrong]

Bracing stuff here: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...12/10/27/52365

I enjoyed this paragraph:

If the Mittmobile does roll into Washington, it’ll be towing behind it the whole anti-intellectual, anti-science freak show. The abstinence obsessives, the flat earthers, home schoolers, the holy warriors, the anti-women social neanderthal, the closeted homosexuals, and every end timer who sees the Virgin Mary in the grass over the septic tank.

[french frank]

I enjoyed this paragraph:

OTOH

[amateur51]

Bracing stuff here: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...12/10/27/52365

I enjoyed this paragraph:

If the Mittmobile does roll into Washington, it’ll be towing behind it the whole anti-intellectual, anti-science freak show. The abstinence obsessives, the flat earthers, home schoolers, the holy warriors, the anti-women social neanderthal, the closeted homosexuals, and every end timer who sees the Virgin Mary in the grass over the septic tank.

Thanks for this, Caliban

[Nick Armstrong]

OTOH

Quite!

[Nick Armstrong]

Thanks for this, Caliban

[Simon]

It's an interesting quote, Caiban, as it shows two things. Firstly, the way that some loonys get a lot of publicity in the USA, and secondly, how the lib/left in general latches on to these loonys to extrapolate general points, not always justifiably. (Though one can hardly blame them!)

I don't disagree with you, actually, on this one. As I wrote here ages ago, I'm for Obama this time, for many reasons, and I'm glad he looks as if he'll do it. It's certainly true that the groups mentioned in your quotation exist and that they would be more likely to gain influence via the current Republican side, which would not, IMO, be a useful direction to take.

That said, the worry for me would be that in dismissing such people so summarily it's possible to forget that fundamentally within their ideas there may lie a more moderate, rational argument that needs to be heard, for balance.

For example to be "anti-science" in general is a silly position to take; to be "wary of some aspects of science and research" is, I'd argue, a very sensible precaution. I'm also not sure that home-schooling is a particularly good thing, yet I believe that there are certainly cases where the attitudes in some schools need to be looked at carefully.

The "end timers" that get the publicity do indeed make themselves a laughing stock, and from a Christian perspective are foolish indeed - the Bible, which they are supposed to believe, states quite clearly in the words of Christ himself that nobody except God can know when the end of things will come! - but that apart, I don't suppose anyone believe that things will go on for ever; there will have to be an end sometime, and the delusions of a few should not detract from the reasoned arguments within the general Christian understanding of the system.

[Pabmusic]

...That said, the worry for me would be that in dismissing such people so summarily it's possible to forget that fundamentally within their ideas there may lie a more moderate, rational argument that needs to be heard, for balance...

Here is a Guardian article, commenting on just one part of this huge issue: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...science-denial

I am probably not qualified to comment on the theology of your last paragraph, other than to say that there are more than 20,000 Christian denominations, each of them believing (I assume) that they are the true religion. Among that 20,000 there will be many denominations that don't accept your view. American religious politics (difficult to separate the two, usually) has not yet shown itself to be very accommodating of "moderate, rational argument".