How did USA become such a messed up country?

[JinXy]

As for the International level. The US can do whatever the f*ck they want. Why? Cause they have the biggest gunz on the street and theyre the only one that actually shot someone, aka Bombing Japan. If some ****ty country wanna start trouble, US gonna punch him in the gut and make him sit the f*ck down. Why? So the bigger kids, aka, china, russia will think twice about starting trouble. Sure, US is in everyone's business and it seem like theyre a bully, blah blah, but guess what, when a typhoon or some catastrophic event occur, guess who's first to aid, who's first to send in troops, etc etc, oh yeah the US. We police the world and we are needed. If the big boys with the big gunz don't play sheriff, the world will be chaotic. It's better to have a bully who runs the classroom, rather than 4 kids fighting to see to gets to be that bully. When it all comes down to it, every country wanna be the US and all hating. There;s always a bully, US is in charge, ofc other countries don't like it. But if those smaller countries have a chance, no doubt they would wanna be the bully themselves. The US is no angel, theres scheming and corruption as well, just like any type of government. But when it comes to aiding the world or helping people, no one's heart nor wallet is bigger than the US. "Americans are pigs, arrogant blah blah" You would be too if u belong in a nation thats the strongest in the WORLD. The US controls the WORLD. "The economy in the US is bad, blah blah" Trust me, if my country fails or falter for some reason, your country would have/will be crumbling 100 times worst. If France or Britain fails, the world will be affected dearly. If the US economy fails, the WORLD fails.
US = World = Boss = Sheriff = Big Daddy= MVP
Sure that sounds obnoxious, but i bet u if my country's defense, economy were to fail tomorrow, your country would of collapsed last month.

unfortunately, those are just your assumptions.

[JinXy]

If a major bank goes bankrupt and is allowed to fail that means that a significant amount of the people with savings there will loose their money and because laws typically mandate that debts are paid out in order of the size of the debt, starting with the biggest means that it's the "little people" that gets screwed over, every single time. At least this is true for states that doesn't have some system where the state guarantees safety for $X.
Besides, if a large bank is allowed to fail it will typically cause a lot of troubles for the other banks because they all have their "securities" invested with each others and if they can't get at those that might mean they risk failing as well.

That will teach people not to assume that just because a bank has been around the corner for 100 years that the bank is safe. It is precisely because of all these moral hazards (the bailouts, and government-guaranteed deposits) that people do not care what the banks do with their money. The banks do not care. They just gamble and compete based on getting higher yields instead of safety of their customers' deposits. The depositors don't care, because the govt's got their back (a careless assumption). People today do more research about the cell phones they want to buy than the bank that they want to put their deposits in.

You are supposed to let bankrupt companies fail. And then the prudent banks who survive will come in and buy up the assets and depositors. And the entire system starts off from a more solid base. Why do you steal money from the rest of the population just to save the banks who're foolish? Do you know that prior to the 2008 crisis, there were more than 7000 banks in the US? The prudent banks are supposed to be gaining market shares in times like this!

[Elldallan]

That will teach people not to assume that just because a bank has been around the corner for 100 years that the bank is safe. It is precisely because of all these moral hazards (the bailouts, and government-guaranteed deposits) that people do not care what the banks do with their money. The banks do not care. They just gamble and compete based on getting higher yields instead of safety of their customers' deposits. The depositors don't care, because the govt's got their back (a careless assumption). People today do more research about the cell phones they want to buy than the bank that they want to put their deposits in.

You are supposed to let bankrupt companies fail. And then the prudent banks who survive will come in and buy up the assets and depositors. And the entire system starts off from a more solid base. Why do you steal money from the rest of the population just to save the banks who're foolish? Do you know that prior to the 2008 crisis, there were more than 7000 banks in the US? The prudent banks are supposed to be gaining market shares in times like this!

Did you know that at least in the US and other places banks has a legal right(and sometimes an obligation) to lie in order to maintain stability.
Sure what you're saying would work if everybody had access to all pertinent information and it was 100% accurate but they don't, so the consumer can't do enough proper research to make the proper informed choice, plus banking is a market with very high entrance thresholds which ensures that it's mostly the same old big players that jockey for position so it's all basically all the same.

And when the bankruptcy laws makes sure that the biggest debtholders gets paid first what your system doesn't work because the biggest debtholders gets paid regardless and thus has no incitement to actually do said research, they'll just go with whoever gives the highest interest rates. Hence the system is skewed to maintain itself just the way it is and the "little guy" gets screwed over regardless of what they do, hence securities and bailouts are necessary to protect the "little guy" who just so happens to be the voters and a bailout is infinitely preferable to a revolt.

Maybe if you changed bankruptcy laws so that the biggest amounts of debts are settled rather than the biggest debts first there would be a change but that would bring all sorts of other problems such as generally slowing down the economy which is bad for pretty much everybody in one way or another.

[paul1229]

1. OFC Most of my points are assumption. But they aren't crazy or drastic. I'm sure most would agree that if the US economy falters or shut down, the world would be in jeopardy.
And in general, the US have a more global effect on the world than any other country.
2. You want 2 bullies with equal power staring at each other? Oh yeah, thats the COLD WAR .... No thank you, I rather have one big bully. At least that way, no one is big enough to fight.
3. Now this is a FACT. No country cares for or help disability, mental disorder, elderly, children, animals, handicap or the poor than the US.
** Don't judge Americans off youtube videos. Sure our 3rd graders arent smart like the rest of the world, nor is our college kids who drink, smoke and waste their life on stupid ****. That's because we have freedom and often than not, the young stray towards the easy life. But our elites, our "cream of the crop" is still the best in the world.

[JinXy]

Did you know that at least in the US and other places banks has a legal right(and sometimes an obligation) to lie in order to maintain stability.
Sure what you're saying would work if everybody had access to all pertinent information and it was 100% accurate but they don't, so the consumer can't do enough proper research to make the proper informed choice, plus banking is a market with very high entrance thresholds which ensures that it's mostly the same old big players that jockey for position so it's all basically all the same.

And when the bankruptcy laws makes sure that the biggest debtholders gets paid first what your system doesn't work because the biggest debtholders gets paid regardless and thus has no incitement to actually do said research, they'll just go with whoever gives the highest interest rates. Hence the system is skewed to maintain itself just the way it is and the "little guy" gets screwed over regardless of what they do, hence securities and bailouts are necessary to protect the "little guy" who just so happens to be the voters and a bailout is infinitely preferable to a revolt.

Maybe if you changed bankruptcy laws so that the biggest amounts of debts are settled rather than the biggest debts first there would be a change but that would bring all sorts of other problems such as generally slowing down the economy which is bad for pretty much everybody in one way or another.

As I've said, it's the moral hazard that prevents people from doing proper research. If the government don't stand behind banks and guarantee the deposits, there will be private people watching what the banks are doing. We will have something equivalent to a consumer report. We have various types of consumer reports for lots of goods and services that the government were not involved in. It can be carried out in the banking sector just as easily, if people do not assume that the government got them covered. When the government do bailouts, they are diverting resources from everyone to save those banks, whether through outright taxation or by money-printing. Everyone loses, except for the fat cats in those banks.

[JinXy]

1. OFC Most of my points are assumption. But they aren't crazy or drastic. I'm sure most would agree that if the US economy falters or shut down, the world would be in jeopardy.
And in general, the US have a more global effect on the world than any other country.
2. You want 2 bullies with equal power staring at each other? Oh yeah, thats the COLD WAR .... No thank you, I rather have one big bully. At least that way, no one is big enough to fight.
3. Now this is a FACT. No country cares for or help disability, mental disorder, elderly, children, animals, handicap or the poor than the US.
** Don't judge Americans off youtube videos. Sure our 3rd graders arent smart like the rest of the world, nor is our college kids who drink, smoke and waste their life on stupid ****. That's because we have freedom and often than not, the young stray towards the easy life. But our elites, our "cream of the crop" is still the best in the world.

1. Yes, there will be problems if the US economy shuts down, because it is currently the world's largest economy. However, the problems will be short-lived for 2 reasons.

First, the majority of goods production happen in other countries. When you remove US from the world economy, you still have a bunch of producers. Producers can consume their own goods. If you remove the rest of the world and you're left with the US, however, you're left with a bunch of consumers. Consumers don't grow the economy per se.

Second, the US (not just the US. I don't want to sound like i'm a US-basher, but since we're talking about US, I'll just stick to it) is living off the rest of the world's productivity. If the world stops subsidizing or lending to the US, it is actually a boon for the rest of the world. They will have more money for themselves and more goods for themselves to consume. Sure, in the short-term, those businesses which rely on US revenue will suffer. But the majority of the other businesses will benefit.

2.Also, i did not say that I want any bully. You argue for the case of one big bully. Imagine a few decades down the road when china becomes the big bully (well, china rarely interfere in foreign affairs in the 3-4 periods in history when it was powerful) and build bases around the US. Will you still have the same view? A recent survey shows that more americans want their government to mind their own business and not interfere too much abroad. People are tired of wars and lives lost. Besides, the nation is broke. Every empire falls because they over-extended themselves.

3. You are right that the US politicians like to help the poor and disabled, but so does every politician around the world. Actually, the best system to care for the poor is through the free-market system. Politicians often have good intentions but the unintended consequences are too huge. They over-promise because they're using other people's money. The US welfare problem has become so bad that in 2012, they spent 45% of their expenses on welfare programs alone. That's something like $1.7 trillion!! Take note that their tax revenue was only around $2.5 trillion. Then add another $1 trillion ++ of expenses on overseas militarism (in your own words, to be a big bully). The US barely has any money for anything else. It doesn't delight me in saying this, but they're quite close to a failed bond auction, which will trigger a huge huge panic.

[Rockie Cantais]

How typically american of you, Socialism is not Communism. While I think his suggestion is a bit unbalanced and extreme it has absolutely nothing to do with communism(where the state owns everything). The problem is that in reality Free Market is just as flawed and unworkable as communism because it fundamentally favors monopolies or at least a market with very few(but large) actors, this gets increasingly obvious the higher the entrance cost for a market is. So you need a certain amount of regulation to prevent that from happening which means that it's not a free market anymore.

From a True American point of view I see not much difference between Socialism and Communism just different shades of evil! Free Markets will work when you add a High Moral fabric to your society. Gaining wealth is not the issue but the lack of morals that humanity allows to happen once wealth has occurred. Free Market does NOT imply no regulations and how European of you to think so! I also say Regulations on the Government to prevent their monopolizing the human society.

Term limits won't do **** as long as you have what is essentially a two party system, you need a system where whole parties can easily be switched out if they attract the ire of the voters.

How would you know? The idea is to have a no party system with term limits, No official ones anyway. One step at a time pls. The true argument against this is Experience! The House was never intended to be experienced and the Senate was, why they have longer terms. I just don't think it was intended to be a career! Evil, I smell it. The goal was maybe one or two terms at the max. The States are to pick the Senators not elected, Progressive plot like many others in America. What you do in your country is up to you, unless you go off the deep end.

So then Obama must have been the president for the last 50 years? And here I thought you had a term limit of maximum 2 terms and with a term generally being 4 years...

You don't understand. Its not Obama you are giving the man way too much credit. Its the Progressive movement and it has been 100 years of this crap! Its like placing a frog in a pot of water. Slowly boil it and the frog will not jump out and heck at some point the frog will go nice warm water. Wink, American peeps is the frog and the progressive movement is the boiling water. Ouch it burns now!

[Rockie Cantais]

1. OFC Most of my points are assumption. But they aren't crazy or drastic. I'm sure most would agree that if the US economy falters or shut down, the world would be in jeopardy.
And in general, the US have a more global effect on the world than any other country.

It would be a very bad time but it could reset. Russia and China are buying up tons of gold, why? Is there any Gold left in Fort Knots? Yes, America economy collapse, the world would be in jeopardy. America is a consumer nations so if we stop buying worlds goods it would hurt. There is no easy way out of this mess it seems only bad and worse path's to take.

2. You want 2 bullies with equal power staring at each other? Oh yeah, thats the COLD WAR .... No thank you, I rather have one big bully. At least that way, no one is big enough to fight.

Most Americans would be insulted at being called a bully, its not how we see ourselves. Thank the Progressive movement for that image of America.

3. Now this is a FACT. No country cares for or help disability, mental disorder, elderly, children, animals, handicap or the poor than the US.
** Don't judge Americans off youtube videos. Sure our 3rd graders arent smart like the rest of the world, nor is our college kids who drink, smoke and waste their life on stupid ****. That's because we have freedom and often than not, the young stray towards the easy life. But our elites, our "cream of the crop" is still the best in the world.

WOW!!!!!!!!!
Knowing stuff does not make you smart, its the ability to apply what you know that is important. Trade certificates are just as important as a college degree. By the way we Americas should send our elites back to the old world! What a mess they have created.

[hllwrld]

....

[Elldallan]

From a True American point of view I see not much difference between Socialism and Communism just different shades of evil! Free Markets will work when you add a High Moral fabric to your society. Gaining wealth is not the issue but the lack of morals that humanity allows to happen once wealth has occurred. Free Market does NOT imply no regulations and how European of you to think so! I also say Regulations on the Government to prevent their monopolizing the human society.

What you call a High Moral fabric is nothing that will ever happen by itself. As it is corporations are actually legally bound to do just the opposite, they're legally bound to maximize profits for their shareholders.
Personally however I think that Socialism is very much what you talked about, the community as a whole through free and fair elections have decided that those who have more ought to give more and imposes that by taxes.
Personally I don't have a problem with people earning money, I however do have a huge problem with a system that lets politicians be bought completely legally and I also have a problem with a system where those with money can essentially also buy the justice system(because in reality the one who can pay for the most expensive lawyers will win). Take those problems out of the system and implement a system for fair elections(because the absurd electoral system is anything but fair)

How would you know? The idea is to have a no party system with term limits, No official ones anyway. One step at a time pls. The true argument against this is Experience! The House was never intended to be experienced and the Senate was, why they have longer terms. I just don't think it was intended to be a career! Evil, I smell it. The goal was maybe one or two terms at the max. The States are to pick the Senators not elected, Progressive plot like many others in America. What you do in your country is up to you, unless you go off the deep end.

The idea might be to not have a party system but in reality the idea that that would work is as absurd as claiming that 1+1=5632. It simply doesn't work, especially not in a system that practices a "first across the line" system where you either win or you loose because it favors a system with few parties that is extremely inflexible. Humans naturally migrate into groups and in a system where it is practically impossible to form new parties and get their representatives elected into any position of relative influence the system is inherently biased towards a system with a few very large parties and once that's the reality it doesn't matter whether there are term limits or not because the party will generally force the individuals to toe the party line, and thus the individuals becomes perpetually replaceable faceless button pushers, sure the individuals might have a little leeway in having their own opinion but it is expected to only differ from the party line in minor nuances.
Hence you get a system that is essentially locked in stasis because you can't vote the parties out of power, they're too large for that to happen and whoever you vote for will just take their place in the faceless party structure. Therefore I think the system practiced in most of europe is a lot more fair and easily influenced because the parties are typically smaller and it's easy to form a new party and gather support because you just need to gather enough votes to gain seats in parliament whereas in the US and UK you essentially have to gather a majority of the votes in enough election districts to gain power which is a much harder thing to do.

Yeah what we do in our own countries are up to us but expect people to have opinions when what your country does affects every other country in one way or another.

You don't understand. Its not Obama you are giving the man way too much credit. Its the Progressive movement and it has been 100 years of this crap! Its like placing a frog in a pot of water. Slowly boil it and the frog will not jump out and heck at some point the frog will go nice warm water. Wink, American peeps is the frog and the progressive movement is the boiling water. Ouch it burns now!

I think you should aim that at the poster I quoted, I was just being sarcastic which I thought would be obvious but I guess Poe's law rears it's ugly head again :P Yes attributing something so far reaching to a single man is obviously absurd.
Personally though I think Obama is moving things in the right direction as opposed to GWB which I and most of Europe thinks was a warmongering nutcase.

[Elldallan]

Most Americans would be insulted at being called a bully, its not how we see ourselves. Thank the Progressive movement for that image of America.

You might not see yourself as bullies but much of the world does and I'm not exactly sure what this supposed progressive movement is but generally I think that the world's image of US as a bully is thanks to several republican presidents(which generally also were political hawks) that went about invading sovereign nations and overthrowing demmcratically elected governments and generally putting their noses in everything wether it was their business or not, and I'm not saying some democratic presidents weren't just as bad but generally they come off as friendly and sensible persons, whereas their republican counterparts usually come off as "We do what we want and either you step out of the way or we run you over with a tank".

[American Badass]

Uhm American Badass why the $10B as such an absolute number?
And no it'd be better if it went to the state instead of spread on the employees because what you're suggesting is fundamentally discriminating because some types of business are inherently high on manpower while others can run with practically no manpower.
But why use $10B as an absolute figure, a progressively increasing percentage would be better.

But considering how global the world is today this would be practically impossible anyway because they'd just move the money around until they got it into some tax paradise with Swiss style banking privacy.

But as I said in my previous post, as long as big business is allowed to legally bribe politicians this will never happen so the political system needs to be drastically overhauled before anything else can happen, and it ain't gonna do that by itself.

I support this idea. A % cap and handed to the state for benefits etc. Sorted.

[JinXy]

I support this idea. A % cap and handed to the state for benefits etc. Sorted.

the problem is not whether companies distribute enough to the employees. Doing this will add another layer of costs to the companies, and they already have too many regulations slapped on them. This is why they are running to countries with less regulations and government interventions. Regulations are why lots of small businesses are finding it hard to compete. Small businesses are already constrained, now you want to constrain big businesses?

Having companies keep their money is not a problem. The money is savings. Savings create more investments. An economy grows through savings and investments.

[Elldallan]

the problem is not whether companies distribute enough to the employees. Doing this will add another layer of costs to the companies, and they already have too many regulations slapped on them. This is why they are running to countries with less regulations and government interventions. Regulations are why lots of small businesses are finding it hard to compete. Small businesses are already constrained, now you want to constrain big businesses?

Having companies keep their money is not a problem. The money is savings. Savings create more investments. An economy grows through savings and investments.

I sort of agree with this, as long as the wealth stays with a company and they keep reinvesting it it isn't a problem, it drives the economy. The problem arises when they sit on the cash or make huge payouts to stock owners(especially when these payouts ends up with a select few individuals), or when they buy off policitians.

I support this idea. A % cap and handed to the state for benefits etc. Sorted.

I wasn't talking about a cap, not a hard one at least, what I meant was that if you earn $10 the tax is 0%, if you earn $50k it's more, if you earn $10B it's 98%. And yes the curve is exaggerated, I'm not trying to come up with exact numbers, merely give a rough understanding of what I mean.
The general idea is that the more you make the more tax you pay as a percentage of that income, but you also get to keep more in terms of absolute money because 2% of $10B is still more then 100% of $10. So there is still an incitement to make more money because even if the state taketh more of it away you still end up richer in terms of disposable money.

[The Moon]

People that get life sentences in prison should be released into bushland and then hunted down and killed by members of the Defence Force as training exercises. It would save tax payer's money and also help train our warrior ants.