~Delete 14406 - История изменений

Moderator: Moderator переименовал страницу KrisBixler849 в ~Delete 14406: Spam

2025-12-25T15:35:50Z

Moderator переименовал страницу KrisBixler849 в ~Delete 14406: Spam

Moderator: Spam cleanup

2025-12-25T15:35:49Z

Spam cleanup

KrisBixler849: Новая: Politics Versus Economic Reality: We Will All Lose In the West there's quite obviously a battle between the politics and also the economics. It's clearest is Europe where - all most as ...

2012-05-17T22:44:52Z

Новая: Politics Versus Economic Reality: We Will All Lose In the West there's quite obviously a battle between the politics and also the economics. It's clearest is Europe where - all most as ...

Новая страница

Politics Versus Economic Reality: We Will All Lose

In the West there's quite obviously a battle between the politics and also the economics. It's clearest is Europe where - all most as one - the economists say the Euro is condemning many to long term austerity and inevitable poverty and it is therefore unworkable - but somehow the politicians don't seem to get it: or will they think the alternative is worse? And the reason for this problem is above all else the commitment to excessive government spending primarily driven by the welfare state. As well as in the USA, that great bastion of free enterprise and the American dream, is incorporated in the middle of a battle to create the identical welfare state to those shores whilst ignoring escalating public debt.

In Democracy in America (published in 1835 in France), Alexis de Tocqueville wrote "The American Republic will endure before the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." Which appears to be happening today. De Tocqueville is interesting because in those days France, and indeed the rest of Europe had primarily aristocratic rule and he would be a liberal who supported the thought of democracy. But he was concerned about the long term effect of this democracy on sensible economics: "From that moment on, most always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits in the public treasury which means that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy."

A fascinating rise in the EU - in a desperate attempt to save the Euro - has decreed that member states must have a well-balanced budget. Of course the main reason they didn't have a balanced budget was because politicians wanted to bribe their voters as well as their financiers (these day almost exclusively big corporate).

[http://blog.bizeso.com/BlogDetail.aspx?bid=68cddd6b-7a77-4e35-afc4-b997d675b785 journalist]

Nevertheless the EU is fulfilling De Tocqueville prophecy by trying to sideline democracy - both in Greece and Italy an attempt by democratically elected leaders to even think about the possibility of leaving the Euro resulted in their instant removal by scheming EU apparatchiks and their replacement by so-called Technocrats. If the EU has its own way I suspect the Greek election due soon is going to be postponed as will any other election that threatens a vote which will destabilise the union.

Obviously the total absurdity of the EU is as it clamps down heavy heavily on rising budgets in EU members states its own budget expands exponentially with screams of protests if anybody suggests otherwise.

But the simple concern is this - can democratically elected governments really cut the cash they are spending towards the voters and ever hope to be elected again? Clearly the very first prerequisite would be that the politicians are willing after which can make the argument - and win it - with their voters. These days, with politicians who use opinion polls rather than conviction as their guiding light, that seems a large ask. Or is it conviction of the wrong kind - a conviction towards the liberal democratic model that believes their state should 'take care' from cradle to grave. The problem in america seems to be probably the most peculiar - with Europe to illustrate what happens when an excessive amount of is spent of social largesse it's extraordinary the united states seems to be following a same model. You don't have to be considered a member of the Tea Party to see something needs to be done about US government spending - and surely the priority should be getting the budget balanced before contributing to it!

Britain's electorates obsession with the NHS (free healthcare) is definitely an illustration of the problems of trying to change something which is sacred cow - yet most accept it is not efficient. Even referring to NHS reform has government pollsters in a lather of despair.

So in the western world the politics is ruling the roost: maybe we ought to the little head is ruling the large head because as everyone knows that economics is sort of a river: it may be dammed, diverted and siphoned but it keeps coming as well as in the end those attempting to stop it must be overwhelmed.

Now you ask , when will economics win? I lived in Eastern Europe after economics eventually won the Cold War. That suggests in my experience Europeans will ultimately be living in some form of protected enclave where those outside have all the latest gadgets and they'll be tied to a classic ipad: buildings will not be repaired and infrastructure will creak and barely work. The inevitability of economics shows that is how the EU is heading: a failing totalitarian state.

The truth is if we are to have state spending - we have to generate enough wealth to finance that spending. That is the economics from it. Furthermore that wealth should also must grow and become readily available to reinvest in new projects to create more wealth to keep paying the bills. Within the socialist/communist system the need to invest is ignored and inefficiencies sidelined within the need to maintain the system.

In the united kingdom the Blair/Brown years saw a vast numbers shuffled onto welfare dependency known as disability. It was exactly the same towards the communist regime allocating every participant of the workforce employment - whether or not a brand new employee was needed. It made Communist business hopelessly inefficient when it comes to manpower: whilst pushing people into welfare dependency just gets in cost towards the tax payer - net effect is the same - less and less money for investment and therefore fewer, and finally no new jobs.

← Предыдущая		Версия 15:35, 25 декабря 2025
Строка 1:		Строка 1:
−	~~Politics Versus Economic Reality: We Will All Lose~~	+	Content removed
−
−	In the West there's quite obviously a battle between the politics and also the economics. It's clearest is Europe where - all most as one - the economists say the Euro is condemning many to long term austerity and inevitable poverty and it is therefore unworkable - but somehow the politicians don't seem to get it: or will they think the alternative is worse? And the reason for this problem is above all else the commitment to excessive government spending primarily driven by the welfare state. As well as in the USA, that great bastion of free enterprise and the American dream, is incorporated in the middle of a battle to create the identical welfare state to those shores whilst ignoring escalating public debt.
−
−	In Democracy in America (published in 1835 in France), Alexis de Tocqueville wrote "The American Republic will endure before the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." Which appears to be happening today. De Tocqueville is interesting because in those days France, and indeed the rest of Europe had primarily aristocratic rule and he would be a liberal who supported the thought of democracy. But he was concerned about the long term effect of this democracy on sensible economics: "From that moment on, most always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits in the public treasury which means that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy."
−
−	A fascinating rise in the EU - in a desperate attempt to save the Euro - has decreed that member states must have a well-balanced budget. Of course the main reason they didn't have a balanced budget was because politicians wanted to bribe their voters as well as their financiers (these day almost exclusively big corporate).
−
−	~~[http://blog.bizeso.com/BlogDetail.aspx?bid=68cddd6b-7a77-4e35-afc4-b997d675b785 journalist]~~
−
−	Nevertheless the EU is fulfilling De Tocqueville prophecy by trying to sideline democracy - both in Greece and Italy an attempt by democratically elected leaders to even think about the possibility of leaving the Euro resulted in their instant removal by scheming EU apparatchiks and their replacement by so-called Technocrats. If the EU has its own way I suspect the Greek election due soon is going to be postponed as will any other election that threatens a vote which will destabilise the union.
−
−	Obviously the total absurdity of the EU is as it clamps down heavy heavily on rising budgets in EU members states its own budget expands exponentially with screams of protests if anybody suggests otherwise.
−
−	But the simple concern is this - can democratically elected governments really cut the cash they are spending towards the voters and ever hope to be elected again? Clearly the very first prerequisite would be that the politicians are willing after which can make the argument - and win it - with their voters. These days, with politicians who use opinion polls rather than conviction as their guiding light, that seems a large ask. Or is it conviction of the wrong kind - a conviction towards the liberal democratic model that believes their state should 'take care' from cradle to grave. The problem in america seems to be probably the most peculiar - with Europe to illustrate what happens when an excessive amount of is spent of social largesse it's extraordinary the united states seems to be following a same model. You don't have to be considered a member of the Tea Party to see something needs to be done about US government spending - and surely the priority should be getting the budget balanced before contributing to it!
−
−	Britain's electorates obsession with the NHS (free healthcare) is definitely an illustration of the problems of trying to change something which is sacred cow - yet most accept it is not efficient. Even referring to NHS reform has government pollsters in a lather of despair.
−
−	So in the western world the politics is ruling the roost: maybe we ought to the little head is ruling the large head because as everyone knows that economics is sort of a river: it may be dammed, diverted and siphoned but it keeps coming as well as in the end those attempting to stop it must be overwhelmed.
−
−	Now you ask , when will economics win? I lived in Eastern Europe after economics eventually won the Cold War. That suggests in my experience Europeans will ultimately be living in some form of protected enclave where those outside have all the latest gadgets and they'll be tied to a classic ipad: buildings will not be repaired and infrastructure will creak and barely work. The inevitability of economics shows that is how the EU is heading: a failing totalitarian state.
−
−	The truth is if we are to have state spending - we have to generate enough wealth to finance that spending. That is the economics from it. Furthermore that wealth should also must grow and become readily available to reinvest in new projects to create more wealth to keep paying the bills. Within the socialist/communist system the need to invest is ignored and inefficiencies sidelined within the need to maintain the system.
−
−	In the united kingdom the Blair/Brown years saw a vast numbers shuffled onto welfare dependency known as disability. It was exactly the same towards the communist regime allocating every participant of the workforce employment - whether or not a brand new employee was needed. It made Communist business hopelessly inefficient when it comes to manpower: whilst pushing people into welfare dependency just gets in cost towards the tax payer - net effect is the same - less and less money for investment and therefore fewer, and finally no new jobs.

← Предыдущая	Версия 15:35, 25 декабря 2025
(нет различий)