10-12-2008, 02:55 PM
Eppie "could you try to use the quote option when you reply, it will be easier to read."
Could you switch to Standard View (chronological), like on forums in the rest of the world? It will be easier to read for me.
Eppie "The choice of Palin for example by McCain is nothing else than giving the finger to the world"
Did McCain make this choice, or the Republican Party?
Eppie "And here the respect for the president is an important factor."
Hardly, as long as the president does a decent job. Bush for example only deserves disrespect for being a weak and easily influenced, not for taking measures that benefit other people then yourself.
Eppie "If you find foreign politics only going to war, than I'd rather see somebody doing less of it, and just stay there and look at his the US own interests."
In McCain's view the US won't need to fight any more wars once things are settled, whereas Obama might start one if he thinks it will improve a stable situation. McCain thinks that wars are for fighting enemies, Obama knows they are for profit.
Btw, I did say that McCain would be my choice because he fits my ideas best. That doesn't mean he would be the best choice for all Americans.
Regarding US and EU coming closer together...
The socalled Free Market works by making trade agreements and shutting everyone out who doesn't want to sign. The more profitable agreements US and EU make, the more other nations will suffer. From our point of view, it has to be this way. The 'rich' countries in the world could never hope to compete economically with the 'poor' countries, if those are given equal chances. They have all the resources (we have used up ours long ago) and cheap labor, remember? So, to keep things 'fair' for us, we have import taxes and export subsidies. That way, we can keep our local markets from being flooded by cheap foreign products, and our local producers can flood foreign markets with our own cheap products. Organisations like the EU 'improve' this mechanism, by allowing members to make a better economic front. We are economic 'allies' against the rest. Since the rest included the USA, Europeans didn't exactly become more popular with Americans.
Let me take our 'beloved' Netherlands to explain a bit. We are very small, amongst the most dense populated countries, and our climate is moderate. Yet we manage to be in the world top when it comes to exporting fruits, vegetables and flowers (and that includes exotic ones). If you think about it, that's very odd. How can we compete with some African country, where they could harvest the same crops at least twice a year, with cheap labor? Over here, we need glasshouses with artificial warmth and light. The costs are enormous (in money as well as environment), and so are the prices in our groceries. And yet, we can dominate the poorer markets in the world with our cheap products.
At this point, you could note that the 'poor' countries do export a lot of goods. But what do they export? Only the things that *we* need from them (because we don't have it, or because it won't grow here, like chocolate, coffee and tea). We won't allow them to produce the things *they* need, because we would loose a huge market for our own 'cheaper' goods.
Ofcourse, this mechanism costs a lot of money (for a government, not for those receiving it). In fact, keeping the poor countries poor this way, costs roughly 10 times the amount we spent on improving the situation. But since this money is used to 'stimulate our economy', few taxpayers ever complain about it.
Could you switch to Standard View (chronological), like on forums in the rest of the world? It will be easier to read for me.
Eppie "The choice of Palin for example by McCain is nothing else than giving the finger to the world"
Did McCain make this choice, or the Republican Party?
Eppie "And here the respect for the president is an important factor."
Hardly, as long as the president does a decent job. Bush for example only deserves disrespect for being a weak and easily influenced, not for taking measures that benefit other people then yourself.
Eppie "If you find foreign politics only going to war, than I'd rather see somebody doing less of it, and just stay there and look at his the US own interests."
In McCain's view the US won't need to fight any more wars once things are settled, whereas Obama might start one if he thinks it will improve a stable situation. McCain thinks that wars are for fighting enemies, Obama knows they are for profit.
Btw, I did say that McCain would be my choice because he fits my ideas best. That doesn't mean he would be the best choice for all Americans.
Regarding US and EU coming closer together...
The socalled Free Market works by making trade agreements and shutting everyone out who doesn't want to sign. The more profitable agreements US and EU make, the more other nations will suffer. From our point of view, it has to be this way. The 'rich' countries in the world could never hope to compete economically with the 'poor' countries, if those are given equal chances. They have all the resources (we have used up ours long ago) and cheap labor, remember? So, to keep things 'fair' for us, we have import taxes and export subsidies. That way, we can keep our local markets from being flooded by cheap foreign products, and our local producers can flood foreign markets with our own cheap products. Organisations like the EU 'improve' this mechanism, by allowing members to make a better economic front. We are economic 'allies' against the rest. Since the rest included the USA, Europeans didn't exactly become more popular with Americans.
Let me take our 'beloved' Netherlands to explain a bit. We are very small, amongst the most dense populated countries, and our climate is moderate. Yet we manage to be in the world top when it comes to exporting fruits, vegetables and flowers (and that includes exotic ones). If you think about it, that's very odd. How can we compete with some African country, where they could harvest the same crops at least twice a year, with cheap labor? Over here, we need glasshouses with artificial warmth and light. The costs are enormous (in money as well as environment), and so are the prices in our groceries. And yet, we can dominate the poorer markets in the world with our cheap products.
At this point, you could note that the 'poor' countries do export a lot of goods. But what do they export? Only the things that *we* need from them (because we don't have it, or because it won't grow here, like chocolate, coffee and tea). We won't allow them to produce the things *they* need, because we would loose a huge market for our own 'cheaper' goods.
Ofcourse, this mechanism costs a lot of money (for a government, not for those receiving it). In fact, keeping the poor countries poor this way, costs roughly 10 times the amount we spent on improving the situation. But since this money is used to 'stimulate our economy', few taxpayers ever complain about it.