3 ms·

no, I would never vote for him. I'm just giving a reason why I don't think he has a chance.

by 0x49 11y ago

mudil 11y ago
I thought Obama was suppose to deliver. Didn't we hear the same aspirations and justifications 8 and 4 years ago?
- mudil 11y ago
  Sorry, I was wrong. Obama delivered. To GOOG/TWTR/YAHO/FB/etc and to Eric Schmidt-backed startup more than to the middle class. My bad.
  - mudil 11y ago
    And we should not forget that Obama also delivered to the NSA. He is the president. Can't blame Republicans for that.
  - Synaesthesia 11y ago
    In the US both political parties are very much pro-business and pro-big business. There is no true labour party that caters to the needs of ordinary workers.
    - Natsu 11y ago
      Clinton might still win the labor vote due to the other side being even less palatable. Which is, frankly, pretty sad, considering that she was on the board of Wal-Mart for so many years. A company which has long been about as hostile to workers as one can possibly be. To pick one of the more egregious items from Wal-Mart history - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4146540/ns/business-us_business/t/suit-wal-mart-locked-janitors-stores/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4146540/ns/business-us_business/t/...
    - patrickaljord 11y ago
      I guess you're suggesting labor party is better at helping ordinary workers than corporations are when it is a fact that free market capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty in countries like Peru where I used to live and all around the world. Before countries like Peru embraced free market like they did in the late 90's, they were extremely poor, they now have a great and growing economy unlike say Venezuela or Cuba who refused to embrace the free market and kept their "labour party that caters to the needs of ordinary workers". How did that work out?
      - hackuser 11y ago
        Labor parties in Western countries are free market capitalists. They aren't purists but neither are the parties of business, who use government to aid their constituents and distort marketplaces. For a counter-example, the period of greatest (I think) growth in the 'West' was the 1950's and 60s, when their economies was much more highly regulated, government much more directly involved, and unions much stronger. Since deregulation and anti-union forces ascended in 1980's, at least in the U.S. most of the population's income has stagnated.
        patrickaljord 11y ago
        > Since deregulation and anti-union forces ascended in 1980's, at least in the U.S. most of the population's income has stagnated. Correlation != causation. Besides, people today live longer and healthier than in the 50's and the 60's. Even in the late 80's, middle class people could barely afford a tv and even less so a microwave, now many people even in the lower classes have a smartphone, microwaves, laptops, flat tvs, travel more and cheaper thanks to flights deregulation etc. Free market has been so efficient that people now have better lives than they used to for cheaper, which explains why incomes haven't gone up that much as it hasn't been needed. It's a proven fact that the world has never been as peaceful, wealthy, well off and advanced as ever despite supposedly evil deregulation and free market.
        hackuser 11y ago
        > Even in the late 80's, middle class people could barely afford a tv This is not true. Color TV ownership, I'm pretty sure, was nearly universal in the late 1980s and I expect most households had more than one. > Free market has been so efficient that people now have better lives than they used to for cheaper, which explains why incomes haven't gone up that much as it hasn't been needed. I'd be interested in some basis for this. Not everything is cheaper, for example health care and gasoline. I don't think I've seen anything suggesting purchasing power overall has increased, but I suppose it's possible. > It's a proven fact that the world has never been as peaceful, wealthy, well off and advanced ... That seems like something that would be very hard to prove or to establish factually. Also, while economies have grown in aggregate, that hasn't made individuals better off. My income could grow from $100 million to $1 billion while 99 people could stay stuck at $10; our aggregate gain would be $900 million or a wonderful $9 million per capita, but that's no help to the other 99 who can't make ends meet. EDIT: I should add that the world overall certainly is wealthier and many fewer are in extreme poverty. To attribute that to the 'free market' (as in purist free-market capitalism, not its usual forms which include elements of many approaches) is erroneous, I think; most was achieved by developing countries following not the market but government-directed industrial policies.

no, I would never vote for him. I'm just giving a reason why I don't think he has a chance.

by 0x49 11y ago

no, I would never vote for him. I'm just giving a reason why I don't think he has a chance.

mudil 11y ago

I thought Obama was suppose to deliver. Didn't we hear the same aspirations and justifications 8 and 4 years ago?

mudil 11y ago
Sorry, I was wrong. Obama delivered. To GOOG/TWTR/YAHO/FB/etc and to Eric Schmidt-backed startup more than to the middle class. My bad.
- mudil 11y ago
  And we should not forget that Obama also delivered to the NSA. He is the president. Can't blame Republicans for that.
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  In the US both political parties are very much pro-business and pro-big business. There is no true labour party that caters to the needs of ordinary workers.
  - Natsu 11y ago
    Clinton might still win the labor vote due to the other side being even less palatable. Which is, frankly, pretty sad, considering that she was on the board of Wal-Mart for so many years. A company which has long been about as hostile to workers as one can possibly be. To pick one of the more egregious items from Wal-Mart history - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4146540/ns/business-us_business/t/suit-wal-mart-locked-janitors-stores/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4146540/ns/business-us_business/t/...
  - patrickaljord 11y ago
    I guess you're suggesting labor party is better at helping ordinary workers than corporations are when it is a fact that free market capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty in countries like Peru where I used to live and all around the world. Before countries like Peru embraced free market like they did in the late 90's, they were extremely poor, they now have a great and growing economy unlike say Venezuela or Cuba who refused to embrace the free market and kept their "labour party that caters to the needs of ordinary workers". How did that work out?
    - hackuser 11y ago
      Labor parties in Western countries are free market capitalists. They aren't purists but neither are the parties of business, who use government to aid their constituents and distort marketplaces. For a counter-example, the period of greatest (I think) growth in the 'West' was the 1950's and 60s, when their economies was much more highly regulated, government much more directly involved, and unions much stronger. Since deregulation and anti-union forces ascended in 1980's, at least in the U.S. most of the population's income has stagnated.
      - patrickaljord 11y ago
        > Since deregulation and anti-union forces ascended in 1980's, at least in the U.S. most of the population's income has stagnated. Correlation != causation. Besides, people today live longer and healthier than in the 50's and the 60's. Even in the late 80's, middle class people could barely afford a tv and even less so a microwave, now many people even in the lower classes have a smartphone, microwaves, laptops, flat tvs, travel more and cheaper thanks to flights deregulation etc. Free market has been so efficient that people now have better lives than they used to for cheaper, which explains why incomes haven't gone up that much as it hasn't been needed. It's a proven fact that the world has never been as peaceful, wealthy, well off and advanced as ever despite supposedly evil deregulation and free market.
        hackuser 11y ago
        > Even in the late 80's, middle class people could barely afford a tv This is not true. Color TV ownership, I'm pretty sure, was nearly universal in the late 1980s and I expect most households had more than one. > Free market has been so efficient that people now have better lives than they used to for cheaper, which explains why incomes haven't gone up that much as it hasn't been needed. I'd be interested in some basis for this. Not everything is cheaper, for example health care and gasoline. I don't think I've seen anything suggesting purchasing power overall has increased, but I suppose it's possible. > It's a proven fact that the world has never been as peaceful, wealthy, well off and advanced ... That seems like something that would be very hard to prove or to establish factually. Also, while economies have grown in aggregate, that hasn't made individuals better off. My income could grow from $100 million to $1 billion while 99 people could stay stuck at $10; our aggregate gain would be $900 million or a wonderful $9 million per capita, but that's no help to the other 99 who can't make ends meet. EDIT: I should add that the world overall certainly is wealthier and many fewer are in extreme poverty. To attribute that to the 'free market' (as in purist free-market capitalism, not its usual forms which include elements of many approaches) is erroneous, I think; most was achieved by developing countries following not the market but government-directed industrial policies.