1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

US are the fattest....

Discussion in 'Health' started by The Scotsman, Jul 27, 2017.

  1. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,550
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Who knows....maybe we can hold off the liberal menace for long enough to start instilling some self respect back into the country cause God knows nothing like self respect is ever going to come out of the democrat party.
     
  2. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,186
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Yup but that's why that party is on life support.
     
  3. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,624
    Likes Received:
    313
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    I've been pondering your post at length and would agree that education is generally regarded as a golden bullet in a lot of cases, however, in order for the educated to flourish I think there needs at be an underlying economic and social stability and social cohesion. Taking your though process and, I guess, applying a type of nonsensical dimension to it, is a drug dealer in Chicago any less financially savvy or educated in the dynamics of his market than a futures trader in New York? The drug dealer, purchases his product, developes his supply chain and supplies the demand of his customers he understands (is educated in) the market he deals in and either makes a profit from those transactions or not. The more product he sells the more profitable he becomes - his USP is his ability to penetrate and understand his market and profit from it. You can educate people that drugs and drug culture is bad but if the underlying sociatal issues are not right then no amount of eduction will turn people away from consuming drugs.

    The "rust-belt" states in Northern USA are suffering from international market changes which are impacting on communities who have no robust defence against their effects - they are having difficulties adapting to change because the underlying fundementals are wrong. You are right eduction may well help. Changing communities and offering alternative forms of industry and services; a different world view will assist, however, this is a multi-generational transition not something that can happen overnight. Also in what do you educate people to attain? Whether democrat or republican I think US political structures are not able to cope with the magnitude of the changes that are going to come. One of my issues with the present US administration is trying to reinforce the stereotypical image of those traditional industrial models which have already failed! Not understanding that they have failed and not providing the structures and narratives for new models is ultimately entrenching those already fragile communities into an ever downward spiral.

    The more you educate a society the more diverse views you have and the more oppinions there are about a direction of travel and I think the present political structures within the US are incapable of accomodating that diversity - the US is simply to large to have two points of view. You mentioned earlier..
    I would suggest looking much further back and this to some extend gels with your thoughts on large government. Personally I think the whole basis of federal government is disfunctional based on the size and diversity of the US model - its like the EU it tries to administer complex industrial, social and financial systems which are not synchronised. Nation states are the best advocates of their own peoples needs, just as individual states would be best placed to judge the requirements of their own communities - power should be divested back to the state in order for its assemblies to manage their own affairs with federal government representing them in the international community and the office of President taking on a quasi-ceremonial role. A state is the best advocate of what its community needs and best placed to implement and install the systems to allow it to flourish be they financial economic or environmental. By all means national defence is a national requirement but such funds that are required should be entreated from the State not a fundemental right of federal government.

    A system that does not adapt to new circumstances surely is destined to die out, the world has moved on, communities have changed, values for better or worse have changed, aspirations have changed. Looking back is essential but surely only to identify where the present has gone wrong and adapt your model to your current circumstances. The present political systems seem (to me at least) to exacerbate the problem by ramming all participants into effectively two houses and with a country the size of the United States I cannot see this as being viable in the long term.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
  4. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,186
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Scotty is correct to note that a return to states focusing on their particular needs is best but I suspect PR likely intended this as well.
    It's really ALL in the constitution so it goes back to square one.
     
  5. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,550
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If you consider someone who has had 12 years of intensive, comprehensive education in finance and investment strategy, I would argue that they could make money regardless of the underlying conditions...maybe not at first by putting the money to work on our own shores, but eventually that prosperity returns here.


    I would argue that most drug dealers (even the ones who become "successful" enter that business because they don't see any other way out of their situations. Dealing drugs is not an easy way to make money, it is just the way that many uneducated people see as most accessible. Really, if you had a comprehensive education in finance and investment that has spanned 2/3 of your life, do you really think that dealing drugs would be the route you chose to earn a living?

    The rust belt states are suffering the inevitable consequences of decades of liberal policy...nothing more....the tax and cost of labor burden became so great that they made themselves uncompetitive in the world market...blame the labor union mentality.

    Financial stability...nothing more. I can't speak to what it is like where you live, but here, if you are on the road during regular working hours you see many pick up trucks driving about with trailers loaded with lawn care equipment going from yard to yard. I imagine that it would surprise most people to learn that those guys going around with small crews cutting grass, and trimming hedges, and doing landscape work comprise a fairly large percentage of the new millionaires in this country.

    If one knows how to deal with money, one doesn't need to make a lot of it to be financially stable.

    I would argue that the plethora of views results from inadequate education. The more focused education becomes, and the more critical thinking skills come on line allowing one to follow a particular view to its logical end, the fewer rational pathways there are to take.

    And that is what the constitution envisioned...according to the constitution, the role of federal government is to protect the sates where international treaties are involved, to defend the borders, and to deliver the mail...that just about encompasses the rightful duties of the federal government.
     
  6. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,624
    Likes Received:
    313
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Thanks for your reply Pale. I'm interested in your comment ....
    What do you define as "liberal policy" in terms of their de-industrialisation and what do you think was the impact of them. To what extent did markets forces play on the ability of these medium to heavy industrial groups to compete in a global market?

    I'm reminded of the air conditioning manufacturer, Carrier from Indianapolis. Just after his election Trump intervened with a phone call to the CEO of Carrier after the announcement that they were moving their facilities to Monterrey, Mexico and would termintate the employment of 1,400 employees. Trump promised up to USD7M in "tax incentives" thus Carrier changed their minds so while most kept their jobs about 550 still lost theirs.
    The story is slightly tainted though, Carrier is owned by United Technologies Corporation who after Trump's intervention subsequently went on the announce further job loses in their group, 700 from their plant in Huntington and Rexnord Corp, Indianapolis losing a further 375. Hope was that the same deal would be extended to those employees as with Carrier, however, Carrier had contracts with the US military the others did not.

    Could the use of subsidising companies with, for example "tax incentives" be defined as a "liberal policy"?
     

Share This Page