I love in the picture that there is a museum guard watching that this art masterpiece isn't vandalized (or tried to be stolen).

We can and do establish communities of value which hold intersubjective agreements about matters assessed as important and key indicators can be established. We then have objective criteria we can understand and rate. But no one except religions and idealists are talking about transcendent truths. — Tom Storm

Most understandable way to put it, Tom?

But again, when we have "objective criteria". And yet only religions and idealists assume transcendent truths.

Now I'm not trying to be here a sophist (hopefully), but I guess my point is just what lengths we go to force the matter into an objective viewpoint. Or perhaps to put in another way, just why did your philosophy tutor had that kind of dismissing attitude in the subject and say "Aesthetics is a non-subject, it doesn't matter - it's just personal taste. Next."?

What I think the problem isn't that Aesthetics is a non-subject, it's just that we don't have the similar methods to study it as let's say question in logic. And when we don't have an easy objective answer, then the whole thing is deemed unimportant.

It's like the economist who lost his key during the night looks for them only under the streetlight (as there he only can see clearly the ground).

But, if you are trying to assess art, catalogue and contextualize it, then we need more than just 'It's cool'.

I never said everything in life requires an objective answer - that would be a real leap. :wink: — Tom Storm

Yet there's the actual philosophical problem: we try in philosophy to give an objective answer... even when the matter is obviously subjective. As if we can somehow avoid the subjectivity, for example by observing people as a whole and their various subjective views as a collection of different opinions.

My philosophy tutor back in 1988 had a simple answer - "Aesthetics is a non-subject, it doesn't matter - it's just personal taste. Next." :groan: — Tom Storm

What's wrong with subjectivity, personal opinions and taste? Isn't it what makes us individuals?

As is everything important in life would have an objective answer. :shade:

You're simply assuming the way things are is they way they ought to be, that, in order to have a viable solution — Isaac

No, but you do have to have something based on realism for the argumentation.

Why now? Why at this point in time have all the ideas been tried? — Isaac

All ideas haven't been tried as usually new ideas come from adapting to a new unique reality. Yet there always is some precedent, some roots in history. Someone likely has had already some similar ideas, which forms then the "new" thinking that isn't familiar to us now.

Why should one culture be better than another? Because a vacuous claim on objectivity? Religious societies do exactly the same. — Raymond

Start first from either having a culture or not. Culture starting from some specialization in the society, things like language and then written language, agriculture, or not having all that. Being just hunter-gatherers. Can you make an claim that one is more preferred to the individual or is it a too vacuous claim?

Yes, positive or negative are quite subjective, yet we ought to make some conclusions on what is better than something else.

But it has turned the world in a more dark place than ever and natural disasters, the still immanent thread of a global nuclear conflict, wars raged with technological monstrosities, and an unprecedented poverty and hunger, a cultural monotony, and a deterioration of spoken language, makes the religious madness in the dark ages seem childplay. — Raymond

It meaning Enlightenment? You really think that negative aspects of the modern World exist because of Enlightenment?

With the same kind of thinking, perhaps we would be better of with any kind higher culture or society.

The financial crisis of 2008 never actually was solved, just pushed forward by reflating the asset bubble.

There were no average income indicators during the late 19th c or early 20th c. because there was no law about wages or labor. — L'éléphant

There's not the same statistics as now, but there truly is information how much people were paid. The basic point is that salaries and real income has increased in 100-150 years. And I would argue that they have increased so much that even low income people can dine in a Michelin star restaurant, if they preferred to save and spend their money like that. (Perhaps every 5 years, as you said.)

I think it's important to notice that if absolute poverty has decreased (especially on the long time scale), many can be worse off than before even if they aren't literally starving. It is important to define what low income or poverty means. Just taking a segment of people who earn the least and declaring them to be poor doesn't tell much.

5. You don't ever try Michelin star chefs' foods cause you can't afford it. So you miss out on quality service and quality food. Btw, Michelin star chefs do not discriminate against who can and can't afford. Visit their restaurant once every 5 years. — L'éléphant

Ah yes, the so telling indicator of low income in this Millennium in the West: you cannot afford to go and eat at a Michelin star restaurant. But perhaps every 5 years. Mmmm.

I remember the story of Finnish artists of the late 19th Century and early 20th Century having dinners in the most fanciest restaurant in the country and basically each one spending an average workers monthly salary in the meal filled with caviar, champagne and cognac. Back then it was an average workers monthly salary.



Now that would be the equivalent of having a meal of 4 000$ to 5 000$, which is way much more that a full meal costs in any Michelin restaurant. But of course, I'd guess you could blow that amount of money by drinking the most expensive wines, which likely the restaurant has purchased just for your kind of sucker that comes around every once in a while and orders the most expensive they have.

The occupying allied army in Iraq was probably as nice as the Babylonian occupying army was. — Bitter Crank

Oh you mean the former regime "occupying" the grounds of ancient Babylon? Well, the last regime there built a nice palace with great views of the ancient ruins just next to it for it's leader.

Just like in the neighboring country where the previous (not current) regime had a lavish 2500 year -jubilee held at the ruins of Persepolis for world leaders and monarchs. Those who view the ancient relics as part of their own culture don't vandalize them or piss on them. They just try desperately to show that there is a direct continuum from the marvelous past to the present.

Even if they are brutal to their own fellow men.

Even the holier than thou-vegan persons entities that have been alive.

Ooh, the horror, the horror.

So in the end, it's all just part of life.

Question: If you can't tell where the "art work" ends and the "vandalism" begins, then how much creative value does the work have? — Bitter Crank

Opinion: That indeed looks like modern art, actually.

There's no F* You's, no "Killroy was here", no universal signs for cunt, or the typical graffiti. In fact where there seems to be something written is in the lower left corner where artists typically would put their name.

Far more telling is the graffiti that US soldiers leaved into ancient Babylon Iraq, fitting to the invasion they carried out in the start of this Milennium.

Col. John Coleman, former chief of staff for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq, told the BBC that if the head of the Iraqi antiquities board wanted an apology, and “if it makes him feel good, we can certainly give him one.”

But he also asked: “If it wasn’t for our presence, what would the state of those archaeological ruins be?”

The Marines spent five months in 2003 based at Babylon, 50 miles south of Baghdad.

Last year, the British Museum said that U.S.-led troops using Babylon as a base had damaged and contaminated artifacts dating back thousands of years.

The German Archaeological Institute said U.S. and Polish troops based at Babylon had caused “massive damage” to the site in 2003 and 2004.

Occupying armies are, well, occupying armies. Perhaps it's fitting that they leave their marks on ancient heritage sites.

Pure contextomy. — NOS4A2

Oh the words don't mean what they mean?

Try to wiggle out of it, troll, try!

As long as the US and the Saudi Royal mafia remain best buds, I guess. — Baden

Yeah.

Well, that relationship of yours has successfully passed through 9/11, so I guess it will last a long time...

Even if the US isn't so dependent on Saudi oil as before, I guess it will remain.

After all, even Trump was on loyal friend of the Saudi regime.

Print money>>buy oil>>magic energy tree! But how to make sure the plebs don't get their fair share? = American politics in a nutshell. — Baden

Indeed. The real question is how long it will last.

Trump benefitted from the fact that America has the best system money can buy, and he did so from both sides of that corrupt reality. He bought politicians, and publicly bragged about it on national television in front of some of those who he had previously bought, in their presence no less. That happened during the public debate during the primary season of the election

The fact that were no objections to that was astonishing to me at the time. — creativesoul

In a Trump-thread, good that you brought this up from the election between Hillary Clinton and Trump.

Trump was a great demagogue and a showman that knew what to say to certain crowd that felt disenfranchised. The vast majority of Americans really don't like the corrupt system that is made now legal and that gives power to the rich and corporations through lobbyists and the "revolving-door". Trump just told what they knew already: the whole thing is rigged for the rich. Americans both in the left and in the right simply hate this, but naturally the bi-partisan effort from the two ruling parties is to make Americans hate each other, hate the citizens supporting the other political side. That's the way I guess how to get people to vote for a system they don't like.

We no longer have a government that places the best interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans at the top of the priority list when making policy decisions. We legalized government bribery in the seventies by changing how it is described, in the guise of characterizing unlimited campaign contributions by very rich individuals as an exercise in an individual's first amendment rights to "free speech". Now there are all sorts of counterarguments that outright reject that argument and do so convincingly, but this is not he place or time. I digress, the SCOTUS set the precedent for legalized bribery to manifest with that decision. Then, president Nixon placed the attorney who argued that case on the court itself. A few years later the court then expanded the ability to bribe elected officials to include a corporation's ability, because corporations are people too. Then, of course, Citizen's United not that long ago...

The current American government is tremendously corrupt, and that is well known and out in the open. — creativesoul

This is why I think you are headed for the American equivalent of "the Time of Troubles".

If 2022 goes without any major things happening, you might sigh in relief, becayse if you think that you have already seen how ugly it will get, you will be in for a surprise...

You are a troll now.

Even the link you give has it in written form:

He could also order, within the swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities and he could place them in those states and basically rerun an election in each of those states.

Here is the goddam newsmax piece where Flynn refers to the military. Those quotes come from that. But your link offers a longer take of that exchange. The End.



Yeah, you need the military to rerun the elections. :roll:

Enough of Flynn, the lock-her-up Q-anon many-times fired general.

He is a symptom. — creativesoul

I agree.

One huge example of the kind of "I'll see you in court"-type of American.

And this is the difference between Trump and the kind of leaders that do a (successful) self coup and snatch the power with force: Trump assumed he could use lawyers to do this, just as he has wiggled away from personal bankruptcies. Or basically, the people around him sold him the fairy tale that without evidence election results could be changed. The most telling example of Trump is the famous phone call where he pressures (or begs, basically) a state official "to find" 11000+ votes. That's the Trumpian version of a self coup.

I think the positive outcome of this debacle is that Americans have been now subjected to the possibility of a self coup or simply a leader rejecting election outcomes. This means that they won't be taken off guard like a "deer in the headlights" anymore if it happens again.

No, Michael Flynn insisted Trump should appoint a special counsel to investigate the voting machines and exactly what happened in swing states. — NOS4A2

Wrong, NOS, he specifically said to use the military.

You simply cannot deny that he asked for the military to be used do this, to confiscate the voting machines. Oh but you desperately think this is an counterargument:

Martial law has been instituted 64 times, Greg. So I'm not calling for that. We have a constitutional process."

Constitutional process where the military is involved in the election process...HAHAHA!!! :lol:

It’s not like medicine or anything else has advanced in a century. — NOS4A2

Still, nearly a million dead Americans, even if the vast majority were old, shows that we haven't put aside the threat of pandemics yet.

The irresponsible fear of President Trump using the military to "steal the election" was regnant in the press leading up to Jan. 6th — NOS4A2

Yeah, just an ex-National Security Advisor (and former US general) of Trump insisting that Trump should use the military to confiscate the voting machines.

Trump "could immediately, on his order, seize every single one of these voting machines," Flynn told Newsmax host Greg Kelly Thursday night. "He could order the, within the swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities, and he could place those in states and basically rerun an election in each of those states."

Using the U.S. military to force states to redo an election is "not unprecedented," Flynn added.

Yeah. Didn't happen.

But really, an irresponsible fear?

One might argue that it was an exaggerated fear as Trump fucks up everything he touches. Trump was just watching events happen staring the television with his children urging to stop the mess, so the plan wasn't something like we've seen in many other places. Even Janajev's putch to save the Soviet Union was more astute in 1991 than this clueless and leaderless attempt (as Trump doesn't have leadership skills, but is a very fine talent in demagoguery and showmanship). Still, nobody cannot deny what he tried to do (as we already knew this from what Trump was saying in the last elections, which to his amazement he won).

Had it been the other way around, the other party in charge and someone urging similar actions, you would have a totally different view of it. And that's why your argument is rather meaningless.

But hey, I look forward after a decade or two the movie that is made of this flawed President and Jan 6th. The style that would be most pertinent depicting the historical reality would be political satire, a black comedy, a farce. Like the style of the Death of Stalin:



(which is banned in Russia, I guess)

Yes, it’s a state-managed collectivist economy through-and-through, and the current seizure is only evidence of how far it is willing to go. But forcing businesses to limit capacity, to enforce mandates, to close early, to adopt shifting policies, to collect subsidies, to outlaw dancing, gathering, walking to the bathroom without a mask etc. is unprecedented, especially in countries that haven’t quite swallowed the socialist pill yet. — NOS4A2

What lengths countries like the US go because of less than a million deaths in couple of years because of such a puny pandemic. A mere two thousand deaths per a million! Or even less. The Spanish Flu had killed tens times more by now.

Oooh, the horrible, horrible collectivism.

(I wonder how the US recovered from the evil socialism and the trampling of the rights of the individual during the Spanish Flu)

Surely some church or religion will attempt this. Still I think that the vast majority of organized religions will hold on to their old "sacred" things and view digital space as a new form of media, as a tool to connect with people.

(The Pope blesses sport cars, so I guess digital spaces can get blessings too, but that they would be really sacred? Hmm...)

Unfortunately, these aren’t market forces at work here, but legislation that favors those who can afford to adapt to capricious government policy, those who who can afford to work from home, those who work on the internet, and so on. — NOS4A2

You don't have free markets anywhere. Didn't have much even before the pandemic. Especially what isn't tolerated at all is that the market would correct it's excesses, which has created the current economic situation we live in.

As this has been such a huge forced experiment, there has been also negative effects that everybody has seen. For example, the schooling from home has been a terrible disaster and it's something that (at least here) is the last thing the government wants to do.

Yes, I completely agree, though I suspect you and I have very different ideas about how that economy functions.

I'm sorry, I mean... I suspect I have some misinformation about how that economy functions... — Isaac

Oh no worries, economists themselves have very different ideas about how the economy functions. As the saying goes, when two economists meet three alternative and opposing views of how the economy works are presented.

Does that sound like an out of control monster? — Isaac

If the inflation persists and the economy tanks (stagflation), it might result in an out of control monster. We have to understand that the actions taken against the pandemic have been taken in the economic realm.

We cannot just think of the pandemic as a health or medical issue and then assume that other things, like the economy or economic policy, are totally separate from it.

You seemed to be assuming the world's money supply is fixed so that if billionaires get richer, it must have been a transfer of wealth from poor people. Did you not assume that? — frank

Yes, to a degree. — Isaac

Isaac. You assumed if billionaires get richer, the money must have transferred from poor people, and thus made the astonishing assertion that the COVID response was the single largest shift in wealth from poor to rich in history. You'll have to back that up with facts. — frank

I agree with @frank here.

First, money supply isn't fixed. Second, money isn't transferred from the poor, because, uh, they don't have money in the first place! If I'm a rich guy and can go to the bank and get a million dollar loan to invest in something with a return-on-investment of 5% and pay a 1% interest rate and a poor investor could get a loan of 5000$ and pay 4% interest rate to invest in the same investment, the money that I'm making surely doesn't come from him! Me and the poor investor get both the money from the bank, which creates it basically from thin air. I'm just getting richer than the poor guy. One has to understand the difference between what is relative and what is absolute as the World isn't a place where the amount of wealth is fixed and anyone who gets more wealth would be taken it from others. This is simply not how the World works as wealth is created.

You see, the poor guy is only relatively getting more poor, but he isn't in absolute terms getting poor, in fact he is getting a little bit richer as the debt leverage is working for him too, but only in a smaller scale. Hence it's simply wrong to say that this means I'm getting more wealthy from the money of the poor people.

Another example of the difference between relative and absolute: If Elon Musk and Bill Gates would move into my neighborhood, my neighborhood would see income inequality rise dramatically and I would be relatively far poorer in my neighborhood than before the two moved in. Of course my absolute wealth didn't change and I'm as wealthy (or poor) as before, but by any relative statistic I would be "worse off" than before. In fact, income inequality decreases when there is an economic depression. Yet in an economic depression it's the poor that suffer the most, because they can drop into absolute poverty.

Of course one might ask the reason why women are getting children older. But I guess the reasons for that don't matter.

Prosperity is possibe without either capitalism or materialism. — Isaac

So give an example as we are talking about poor societies and rich societies.

I hope the forum adds the posts download feature soon. — TheMadFool

I'm for this too! :up:

Address something I've written, — Isaac

OK,

Fertility rates in developing countries are controlled mainly by age of marriage, length of breastfeeding and mortality (or morbidity) prior to 50. — Isaac

With modern medicine and health care morbidity has fallen throughout the World, even if there are difference between the poorest countries and the rest. Yet things like child morbidity has steadily declined all over the world since the last century. And these other issues you mention are simply minor compared to the society becoming more prosperous. In fact, changes in things like age of marriage seem to happen when societies develop and come more prosperous. Families don't get their daughters married at young age, but put them to school. Things like that.

What has materialism got to do with it? — Isaac

Well, put there the term "capitalism" or anything, but NOTICE this is just what I said to be narrative going off to something else that basically is a distraction. So as I said this is the wrong way to go, this isn't an objection to my response as my basic line is that more prosperous society makes people to have less children and hence we should try to make all people in a society, not just a tiny section, be more prosperous.

What does this mean? — tim wood

Hmm... a new member that came to this forum 14 days ago who's first post basically without anything else than a long quote.

Yeah, talking about "military adventurism by the Ukrainian authorities" tells what this is about.

Spam. Moderators should note it.

In any case, if the EU-US pressure on Russia continues, Russia will have no other choice than ally itself with China. They are already cooperating on space and military technology. If they come to some mutual defense agreement, this will vastly increase China’s position in the world to the detriment of the West. — Apollodorus

Russia and China have already held military exercises together, China has been a large arms customer for Russia and the vast majority of both Russians and Chinese have favorable views of the others.

The conflict in Ukraine could pick up dramatically it's intensity as Putin has made tough statements against NATO.

But here's the issue. I notice that you are a firm believer of this idea foreign policy serves (and is dictated) by private companies. In the US this is a popular belief especially with the military-industrial establishment. And things like Dick Cheney being the CEO of Halliburton makes this argument quite credible.

But seems it hard for you to think that other people in other societies think differently. Russia is the case where national security and 19th Century power politics trumps economic issues and companies don't have much to say. Putin doesn't care of the stock market or individual companies, state security is paramount. He doesn't care about economic sanctions, he doesn't work for the oligarchs, the oligarchs take orders from the Kremlin or are in jail or exiled in their luxury condos in London or other places.

Fertility rates in developing countries are controlled mainly by age of marriage, length of breastfeeding and mortality (or morbidity) prior to 50. - All you've shown is a weak correlation* with an extremely vague measure. — Isaac

The link between wealth and fertility is quite well understood.

The decreasing relationship between the two variables demonstrates the connection between fertility choices and economic considerations. In general, poor countries tend to have higher levels of fertility than rich countries.

In particular, women tend to give birth to no fewer than three children in countries where GDP per capita is below $1,000 per year. In countries where GDP per capita is above $10,000 per year, women tend to give birth to no more than two children.

This decreasing relationship between fertility and income is well known to economists and demographers alike. In addition, it holds true over time: Rich countries, such as the U.S., have experienced a remarkable decline in their fertility rate as they became rich. Also, the relationship holds at the individual level, as rich families tend to have fewer children than poor families.

It's one of those things demographics has know for years:

A large literature examines the causes of fertility decline in the developing world over the past half-century. This literature is not easily summarized, but there is broad agreement that development is a key driver of changes in reproductive behavior, as hypothesized by classical demographic transition theory (Davis, 1945; Kirk, 1996; Notestein, 1945).

Now the demographic transition theory and it's four steps explain well what has happened. Especially it's third stage is what crucial here to understand:

Third Stage:

It is also characterised as a population stage because the population continues to grow at a fast rate. In this stage, birth rate as compared to the death rate declines more rapidly. As a result, population grows at a diminishing rate. This stage witnesses a fall in the birth rate while the death rate stays constant because it has already declined to the lowest minimum. Birth rate declines due to the impact of economic development, changed social attitudes and increased facilities for family planning. Population continues to grow fast because death rate stops falling whereas birth rate though declining but remains higher than death rate.

But what is needed is prosperity, for there to be universal education, for the situation of women to improve (and be taken into the workforce) and for all these issues like changing social attitudes to happen. If that economic take off doesn't happen (like in Mali, Somalia or the DR Congo), people truly seek shelter from economic distress by having children. In the wealthier economies hardly anybody thinks like this.

Family planning has always been something of an economic issue, you know.

This really isn't at all vague.

What solutions to this problem do you think would be the most effective, even if they might not be morally ‘good’? — Schrödinger's cat

This is actually easy, but people simply don't understand it.

Population growth will end when the fertility rate is below 2.0+.

That fertility rate lower than 2.0+ that has universally happened when people have become more prosperous. Just look at where you have high fertility rates (rapid population growth): in the most poorest countries. Seriously:

Rank /Country/Fertility rate in 2019 (births/woman)
1 Niger 6.824
2 Somalia 5.978
3 DR Congo 5.819
4 Mali 5.785

Niger, Somalia, DR Congo and Mali are one of the most poorest countries in the World.

(Fertility rates have GONE DOWN. Dramatically. All over the World. Thanks to the increasing prosperity and the social change because of it.)


Making people more prosperous, to eradicate poverty is not morally bad at all. Have social security, pensions, the ability that a single person without a family can live well when he or she isn't able to work anymore and isn't forced to be a beggar. So there is a truly moral solution to this. It's not about condoms, it's about that you don't have to make children in order for them to look after you when you are old. Then people don't have to have huge families to survive.

Just stop with narrative of the end of the World is nigh because of this and we have to repent our hedonistic materialism and everything else in our society and have something totally else!!!

(Unfortunately, that I think is what people want to hear when debating this issue.)

Smith and Keynes never stated that inflation is always a result of changes in the money supply, which is what the claim was initially. — Xtrix

Indeed they weren't monetarists, but they did understand that just printing more money to cover expenses of the government will create inflation. Keynes of course did naturally see uses for things like debt financing, but the how not to run a central bank was obvious for a person that acted as a director of the Bank of England. Of course his theories for inflation ran into problems with stagflation, which only shows that there isn't one simple phenomenon or process for rising prices. After all, if prices rise because of larger demand or smaller production, that isn't inflation but ordinary way how markets should work.

Again, it's hard to see the connection, but one important thing behind it all is essentially greed, the desire for more and more money and power, and the adherence to the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind" (Adam Smith) of "all for ourselves and nothing for other people" -- or "gain wealth, forgetting all but self." — Xtrix

Greed and ignorance of one's own role. Like having the attitude that problems are for others to solve... like the government. The basic problem is that actors that don't understand that there actions have large consequences.

I think the worst case scenario is where you have a clueless elite that simply doesn't understand it's role in a society, that it's them, the ruling class, that ought to take the initiative to correct the problems. Or at least, give way for others to solve them. At worst this elite is just fearful of it's own commoners, hiding behind walls and sending all the money to outside safe havens without investing anything in their own society.

So what's your prediction? — Mongrel

Current ideologies and indeed promoted with similar ardor as with traditional religion, that is true.

You have evangelists that spread the true word.

You have a lithurgy.

You have to redeem yourself, become a true believer. It's a faith issue thinly disguised in reason.

All that in various political ideologies in use today. The fact is that when the society has become more secular, the trappings of a religion work very effectively. Some people just don't notice it.

Lol. Have to say that the Trump administration was the most transparent administration as various people paint the same exact picture you could see from just following the guy.

As I've stated again and again, just to watch through the Putin / Trump press conference and the abnormality of the Trump Presidence was all there to see.

But believe by all means the Republican mantra with religious fervor as you do.

Treasuries are issued by the treasury to make up the difference between revenue (mostly taxes) and spending. So the Fed buying treasuries is, in a sense, funding all kinds of government spending. — Xtrix

There you said it yourself.

They themselves are a part of the government, of course, but they're given this special privilege. — Xtrix

Technically they aren't. (That's the norm with central banks, actually) Remember it was the Wall Street banks who created the Fed, even if then the law was passed by Congress. Meeting at Jekyll Island in 1910 and all that.

But the original issue was about inflation. The Fed is in charge of monetary policy, which plays a role in inflation -- no doubt about it. But Friedman's thesis, that inflation is "everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon" just doesn't seem to apply everywhere and always. — Xtrix

When there a speculative bubble that has burst, the deflationary effects can easily overwhelm any actions central bank makes for the moment.

And I'll reiterate, this idea isn't something just from Friedman as the monetarist go to specific directions with their theories, but basically what already Adam Smith and Maynard Keynes noted. So this isn't a purely monetarist view here.

But remember not long ago there was a surplus, not a deficit. — Xtrix

When? During the Clinton era? More of a technical one as with changes to Social Security (and it's famous Trust Fund) you can get a surplus:

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).

Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intragovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.

The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.

Actually the above is a good example how the system works. But of course, the problem is that aging of the population doesn't mean good for the Social Security Trust Fund, even if the demographic situation of the US isn't as bleak as it is here.

The debt isn't even that big a problem, for many reasons. — Xtrix

Before the crisis, it isn't. Just like a "nobody" can see a speculative bubble until is bursts and all the excesses of the "strong new economy" are exposed. It's all based on faith and hence there isn't any real indicator when the faith bubble will burst.

The Republicans are itching to cut social security and medicare and turn them over to private hands -- no surprise there. The Democrats want to "tax the rich," which is on the right track, but then have no problem shelling out a grotesque $778 billion in defense spending. Meanwhile their "proposals" never come to fruition on taxes. — Xtrix

I agree. Let's forget the political rhetoric here. Basically the two parties just want to spend on different issues (or easy the tax burden of the super rich) and the Republicans have their sanctimonious lies about taking seriously the deficit issue. We should put the rhetoric aside and look how the two parties operate.

How they operate is that they simply will continue with the same old ways until we have a crisis. That's how things happen. I think Naomi Klein in her book "the Shock Doctrine" pictures this falsely thinking that government deliberately create crises to then push through their liberal agenda. They might resort to some ideological agendas too, but the clear fact is that they don't want the crisis to happen intentionally. I'm sure if there is a dollar crisis or whatever they call it, some will argue that it was done on purpose by "insert here the people who you think are bad".

. And it's capitalism that is crushing us and will, in all probability, be terminal for us. The Fed plays a large role in all of that, no doubt -- but it's not completely their fault. — Xtrix

Likely it isn't so terminal. Just look at us now in the midst of global pandemic where millions have died an the World has been locked down in spectacular ways. Things go on.

Same will be if (or when) this crisis really blows up. People will just loose a lot of money. There will be many more unemployed. Political turmoil. And some people will profit especially in the long run. But life, and also capitalism, will go on. (So no need to worry that people won't have that to bitch about in the future).

They didn’t need to fabricate conspiracy theories to do it. — NOS4A2

Don't you remember Whitewater and Kenneth Starr, who was initially appointed to investigate the suicide of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments of Bill Clinton? That Starr that afterwards joined Trump's legal team. :snicker:

Yes, the selectivity of your memory is telling. But I guess it's a norm with deeply tribal Americans. But the truth is the mudslinging with conspiracy theories has been the norm for American politics for a long time.