<p>What topics in Social Justice interest you?</p>
<p>The humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region?</p>
<p>The current war in Iraq?</p>
<p>The high levels of poverty in many 3rd World nations?</p>
<p>Feel free to post your thoughts and ideas.</p>
<p>all of the above and more.</p>
<p>All of the above and more..</p>
<p>In my personal opinion (not a representation of my countryppl) I dont think that there is any (relatively) social injustice in Iraq at this point...ppl love to talk about the prison abuse etc. but forget that it is still better than the torcher rooms under saddam...social justice relating to iraq should be discussed from a perspective of how people suffered under saddam...and how the US (and some of its allies) helped the ppl find their way to a free democratic country...</p>
<p>i wont debate if ppl have other opinions (coz i have final exams and then i am out for vacation...)</p>
<p>If yall want to discuss social issues, discuss the root causes of all these issues and what will be evident is the lack of foresight and greed of a small group of ppl causes most of these 'issues'...also, since all of us are shootin for stars (by applyin to some of the best colleges in the world) if we want to discuss..lets discuss how WE (you AND me) can change the situation...its very easy to bit ch about what wrong other ppl are doing...but very difficult to alter the situation..."if you wait for a leader, you will always be the follower"</p>
<p>I think that the main cause of high levels of poverty in many 3rd world nations is the LACK of economic and political freedom. unfortunately many colleges in the united states are dominated by a michael moore fueled left wing ideology, and many westerners believe that CAPITALISM is the major cause of world wide poverty which is not true.</p>
<p>mrttambourineman: Is there any way for you to contact me? Perhaps e-mail me? (My e-mail is in my profile)</p>
<p>I want to talk more with you about these issues. Thanks.</p>
<p>left-wing ideology is not Michael Moore, for goodness sake. The problems in Africa mainly stem from bad governance and a lack of free trade (being pro free trade is perfectly compatible with being of the Left btw). Interesting how massive deficits, tax cuts for rich people who won't spend it, and a lack of any regulations to safeguard against abuse is considered a panacea?!</p>
<p>goodliberal,</p>
<p>we have already gone over this on sooo many threads...please read the posts on
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=32769&page=4&pp=20%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=32769&page=4&pp=20</a></p>
<p>& <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=37159&page=4%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=37159&page=4</a> about what i think about the likes of MM</p>
<p>as far as deficits and free trade...i dont know which coll u applyin...but i do hope tht u take econ 101 and understand how these two concepts are so intertwined that you cannot be FOR free trade and then bit ch about deficits...</p>
<p>Paul Krugman, a respected international economict manages it... I was talking about fiscal deficits rather than trade deficits btw...but I am just a pol sci graduate.</p>
<p>And if you think that everyone in Iraq is happy at US-imported social justice, then you are delusional. The occupation not only alienated just about every Iraqi, but the vast majority were not in favour of the invasion anyway. If you had received phone calls, like my friend has, from relatives out there frightened like never before, then you would not float such baloney.</p>
<p>Also, a liberal democracy doesn't emerge out of thin air, it needs certain conditions. please read Fareed Zakaria's 'Future of Freedom' and ***uyama's 'State Building' (note: hardly raving left-wing loonies)</p>
<p>the author of 'The End of History' is censored... I am sure that you might guess his name anyway!:)</p>
<p>even for fiscal deficits...lets talk about it</p>
<ul>
<li>republicans got elected 1/1/2001.</li>
<li>stock market crash started 3/24/2001</li>
<li>offical recession began in 1q 2001</li>
<li>terrorist attack dampened the already weak economy on 9/11/2001</li>
<li>worldcom, enron had been cooking their books since mid 90s. they shocked the market in 2002</li>
</ul>
<p>summary so far: bush/republicans were not responsible for the recession. When a country is in a recession, you have 2 corrective measures a. monetary and b. fiscal</p>
<p>a. monetary: greenspan & co. initiated int. rate cut 1/3/2001 to boost the already weakening economy. This interest rate cuts would only help the economy at 14-18 months lag time (coz more liquidity in the market has a 'multiplier effect' which takes a long time to change the # of hands required to have the effect). So more had to be done to improve the economy and that is where fiscal policies come into play</p>
<p>b. fiscal policies: incetivize the consumer to spend more to boost the economy is the motto of every economy (a $ spent is worth more than a $ in the bank for economic growth). so tax cuts, reduced taxes on dividends, tax refunds etc. were measures to help boost the economy</p>
<p>a combination of these policies were successful in bringing the economy out of the worst recession in decades...ofcourse, this would lead to fiscal deficits because the govt is giving cash to the consumers to boost the economy...</p>
<p>Now, lets look at the other side of the spectrum</p>
<ul>
<li>excess cash/liquidity in the market usually causes inflation (more $$ chasing fewer goods), but greenspan & bush co. tackled it properly by not imposing taxes on foreign trades.</li>
<li>the new 'walmart economy' of the US, where co.s like walmart have tremendous negotiating power continued to exploit US free trade and get more things from china, thereby controlling the inflation</li>
<li>these move of suppliers from mid-western states to china caused cyclical unemployment much less than most parts of the world (western europe is 8-12%)</li>
<li>the cost of controlled inflation (and thus providing US corporations with a longer timeframe to be competitive @ lower interest rate/borrowing cost) was more beneficial than the cost of 6% unemployment.</li>
<li>in the end, 2004 and ytd 2005, proved that unemployment is easing (unless you listen to ms. kennedy & moore) #s dont lie, economy is expanding, consumer confidence is up, corporate competitive is up...</li>
</ul>
<p>summary so far: yes there is record deficit (in absolute terms, remember US economy is $11.5 trillion economy) but also it was necessary to handle the poor economy handed over by the previous president.</p>
<p>yes social security is a mess and could add a lot more to deficits but is a. both parties are equally responsible for the mess and b. bush's plan would stop the taxes to climb up to 60-65% and stop economic growth (i m sure u understand tht higher taxes = lower consumer spending = lower gdp growth...)</p>
<p>as far as iraq goes...you will always hear both the stories like any other time...there are still kkk supporters out there...but that does not make it right...every time a generation has to give up something for a brighter future (like US's post wwii generation, japan's 60s generation, etc.) and the whatever pain that iraqis are going thru right now is so that their kids (boys and girls) can go to school and walk down the street with freedom of speech and act like you and me (without fearing being taken away by saddam's goons)</p>
<p>long winded answer...btw - i have read future of freedom and have talked/discussed with fareed zakaria (whose parents live 3 houses down from my place in bombay) about it extensively...he also would agree that yes 'liberal democracy' does not emerge from thin air...but it'd only emerge if you give it a chance...</p>
<p>thank you for an interesting reply. Some points in reply:
I agree that the Clinton economy was not as robust as some of the more partisan Dems would argue, however the overvaluation of the stock market played a massive part- something that dems like Krugman had been arguing was unsustainable for some time.
as for b), this would be fine if the tax cuts (not tax 'relief' please- such Orwellian doublespeak) went to people who were going to spend it. Alas, it went to people who had no use for it.
Also, interesting that in the world recession, the UK emerged in one of the most encouraging ways and New Labour put UP taxes...
As for manufacturing jobs going to China- I agree with Bush's economic adviser who said that outsourcing is good for an economy, however displaced workers need extensive job-training and skills-enhancing programs to get them into new high-skilled jobs as their jobs go to lower-cost economies (therby passing on savings to the consumer). Thatcher in my country devastated communities when she shut down the pits by not giving them anywhere to go. Indeed, her Chairman, Lord Tebbit, told them to 'get on their bikes'.<br>
There are also loopholes with US companies stationing their 'HQs' just outside the US but being US companies in everything but law.
As for social security. There is no crisis. If the stock market is buoyant enough to give liveable pensions then the economy would be buoyant enough to afford the social security programme. Also, the 'Trust Fund'/'lock box' would use excess tax revenue and direct it to the social security fund until it was over the bulge in the system (the baby boomer are like a snake that has swallowed a mouse!). Also, medicare and medicaid are in a lot more trouble financially than social security.
As for higher taxes=lower growth. It is interesting to note that Sweden enjoyed a GDP per capita to rival the US since the war on an extensive welfare state. Indeed, markets are very good at creating wealth, but less good at distributing it. A certain amount of redistributive taxation is a necessary. Also endogenous growth theory suggests that spending on infrastructure, R&D and education can have outsize effects on GDP growth. These things have to be paid for. Also, it isn't just GDP per capita but quality of life. In that sense many people might prefer to live in Europe rather than the US despite the obvious structural problems in places like Germany.</p>
<p>As for Iraq- my worry is that the kids and grandkids will get some other squalid dictator. Iraq has a small middle class, a GDP figure nowhere near the minumum for a sustained, guaranteed liberal democracy, no tradition of liberal democracy, faces a sustained insurgent campaign with massive ethnic fissures. I find it strange how anyone can say 'job done- liberal democracy is here!' while ALL the indicators suggest that Iraq still has a LONG way to go. All the while and those pesky fundementalists are still knocking about elsewhere and the Iraq invasion has hastened Iran's and N. Korea's own 'self-defence' nukes. See Gaddis in Foreign Affairs on that topic (in an article not scathing about Bush).</p>
<p>goodliberal - as 'liberal' as u are (from ur name) and as 'conservative' i am from my perceived biasness...i am pleasantly surprised that we have more in agreement than disagreement (unless u like teddy kennedy :p)</p>
<p>some points that i would make to strengthen/weaken your arguments...</p>
<ul>
<li><p>i agree that stock market overvaluation played a large part and there were as many dems and repubs cryin out against it...what i was trying to point out was that electin bush did not cause the stock market to fall as perceived by an average liberal. it was more cyclical than anything else...</p></li>
<li><p>in the US HNW individuals pay more tax thann most corps combined and if bush's tax proposal favored high income earners (which in his definition is any1 who earns more than $87,900 per year is coz they do ACTUALLY spend more than all the other ppl combined) you also got to remember that US, which is a more service based economy, tends to get more of its gdp contribution for intangible sectors like banking, r&d, etc. which is where these ppl earns and spend money...</p></li>
<li><p>i cannot agree with u more about the need for training for displaced worker and that is why i commend the increased spending towards the technical colleges and programs like 'no child left behind' (which has some deficiencies, but has more positives than negatives) by the bush govt...</p></li>
<li><p>yes medicare and medicaid are more pressing issues, but also realize that more contollable from politics perspective. for example - currently, the medicare program pays for unemployed young men/women and pays for drugs like viagra...that is completely bull shi t...also it discourages use of generics which are available at a cheaper price...so medicare/medicaid can be solved using many of these policy changes...</p></li>
<li><p>about social security...u r from england...and i am sure that you have witnessed how high taxes in western europe have stagnated economic growth...same thing could happen to the US in 2030 when the real crunch for ss is felt...i completely agree with some liberal ideas that ss to those with average income of say $300k or assets of $3 mm should be done away with...but other than that waitin for 2030 to increase ss taxes to support the existin system will make US a relatively underdeveloped country in matter of couple of decades (unless they expand and encourage immigration, which brings other sets of problems alongwith)</p></li>
<li><p>about your comment on gdp per capita and quality of life and comparision of the US vs. europe...i think it'd depends on whom u ask...u ask a wealthy person if he is willin to bust his ass 80-90 hours a week so that there is more 'equitable distribution of economic capita' and i am sure that he is willing to move his tax status to bermuda, bvi, etc. BUT if u ask a displaced worker...if he minds taking a portion of money taken from the rich as taxes...hell, i bet he/she'll take it...so personally...i think tht the whole 'socialist' policies of quality of life is a superficial philosophies to hide the less efficient/lazy people at the cost of more efficient/hard working ppl</p></li>
<li><p>as for iraq, iran, korea... all we can do is TRY...no1 knows what future is going to hold...but if the british raj had continued thinkin that leavin india would be a bad decision because of fragmented princely states...i would have never experienced the freedom i am enjoyin today...no1 knows what tomorrow has in store for us...but all we can do is TRY to make a better tomorrow so that we dont have much regret factors...</p></li>
<li><p>i am not aware of gaddis in foreign affirs....could u give me the link...</p></li>
</ul>
<p>i apologize for babblin...coz compared to u, i am surely less knowledgable...i m in india and my knowledge of global politics is stretched the my access to diff. media..also unlike u (i believe u a grad student) i am 17 yr school kid who is more interested in beers and babes than bombs and bi-partisan talks...but got to do...wht u have to do...</p>
<p>I am intensely interested in all of the topics you mentioned, would like to become more involved, and commend all those doing so already.</p>
<p>you must remember that I am British liberal- not a socialist! I am a member of the Liberal Democrats in the UK, whose philosophy can be found here- <a href="http://www.ldys.org.uk/beliefs%5B/url%5D">www.ldys.org.uk/beliefs</a> . I believe in equal rights (including gays and blacks etc), markets where possible, the state where necessary and equality of opportunity so that everyone can fufill his/her potential. The ability to 'make man divine' as William Blake put it. I don't agree that market fundementalism provides that alas.
Some examples- is there equality of opportunity in the US where rich people can afford better health care than a poor person?
Does a black, gay kid from the inner city have the same life chances of an equally talented kid from the suburbs?
I think Rawls gets closer to describing the neccesary society for this to flourish and I find it hard to believe in that and self-describe as a conservative. Gladstone once said: 'Conservatives believe in prejudice tempered by trust in the people, Liberals believe in trust in the people tempered by prudence'. Or Conservatives believe in tradition even at the expense of progress, Liberals believe in progress even at the expense of tradition. Anyone a belief in equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome makes me a liberal and not a socialist...</p>
<p>Now onto the meat..
we are agreed about the stockmarket- I never blamed Bush for recession anyway. It was a global phenomenon.</p>
<p>If tax cuts where given to hard-working middle class families, it would have been spent just as much (if not more so), and would have been more equitable.</p>
<p>Glad we agree about worker training. As I said I am a free-trader, but there are necessary policy corrollaries for EQUITABLE free trade, and many people on the Right do not acknowledge this.</p>
<p>Medicare/Medicaid- Should not unemployed people get medical treatment?! Also, Viagra...ummm...I dunno, if a guy wants a family and can't 'get the job done' then maybe it is a health issue that should be respected. "recreational viagra' is another matter... If these programs are more in 'crisis' than SS then surely it would need more than this?!</p>
<p>As for high taxes/economic growth- high taxes only stunt economic growth when they discourage work and distort incentives. For instance, in the UK we could have a top rate of 50% for incomes over £100,000 without really damaging incentives. Indeed, many people will work harder to maintain their income. The money could go into programs that would help kids from deprived backgrounds have the same life opportunities/educate people more for a more civilised society/improve the health service etc etc.</p>
<p>If the US ran deliberate surpluses over a number of years the taxes wouldn't not have to be too high and would enable them to get over the bulge. Bush's plan would see many people have poverty incomes in their old age, as if their entitlements would be of a decent level thru the stock market then the SS system would not be in crisis as it is at the moment.</p>
<p>I worry with the terminology of 'less efficient people'. If I choose after grad school to become a teacher rather than a banker, am I more lazy/less efficient? If the money raised does not effect incentives, and goes into programs to improve services for everyone, life chances for the less fortunate, put more policemen on the street then this is in everyone's interests. Compassion for other people is an important part of being a sensitive, alive person. I often find it ironic that the 'Christian' right profess a political religion that depends entirely on self-interest and the refutation of any collective action. An intersting article on the wider subjects of 'quality of life'- <a href="http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6761%5B/url%5D">http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6761</a></p>
<p>As for Iraq, N Korea, Iran etc....I admire your idealism, but that is the same Wilsonianism that led to trouble in Vietnam. i agree with the aims of spreading liberal democracy, but it must be tempered by realism and the ackowledgment that we are in a war againt Al Qaeda (which had nothing to do with Iraq). Gaddis is here- <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050101faessay84101/john-lewis-gaddis/grand-strategy-in-the-second-term.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050101faessay84101/john-lewis-gaddis/grand-strategy-in-the-second-term.html</a></p>
<p>And you are more than holding your own- it is nice to have an informed argument. Be sure to visit <a href="http://www.ldys.org.uk/forum%5B/url%5D">www.ldys.org.uk/forum</a> when it is back up and running (soon I am assured).</p>
<p>First, let me clarify that I am socially more liberal than conservative, but from fiscal and international politics stand point, more conservative than liberal.</p>
<p>So to your post, if you ever see a tall Indian fighting for equal rights for gays, blacks, women, etc. assume that it is me. BUT, at the same time I will not fight for rights for minorities because oh! We were enslaved I call it bulls hit it has been 400 years and that is a long freaking time to overcome any type of racism. Also, I am very much against young healthy minority men/women living off on welfare schemes or begging for a $1 for cigarettes fck if they are able to, they should earn their living and the state should not be responsible for their well-being I also believe in equality of opportunity, but having lived in three great democracies of the world (India, US, UK), I dont have any doubts that prejudice and discrimination in the western world exists in certain pockets only and the people who are discriminated against have enough means to fight against it </p>
<p>I am glad that you dont blame the recession on bush unlike many liberals from the US (who have started blaming everything, including accidental pregnancy on bush )</p>
<p>As for tax cuts 70% of consumer spending in the US is done by 25% of the population (like most other countries, but the rich-poor spread has increased more in the last 3 decades in the US) and these people should be given the tools to jump start the economy. Also, dropping taxes on dividends from the top bracket to capital tax bracket (15-20%) indirectly enhances a very large segment of population (including middle income earners)</p>
<p>About Medicaid/medicare, as I had said before, I am a school kid in India and I just dont enough about this topic to discuss. I feel that medicare/Medicaid should be used to provide essential medicines/treatment and we can debate all day long on whether Viagra should be categorized as essential or not. It does open avenues for a larger % of people having the ability to abuse the system (unless they perform a test on whether they can actually not get the job done :) )</p>
<p>About taxes, I am not sold on the idea that I trust any government to be better at allocation of countrys wealth. Also, diminishing marginal tax revenues with rise in the taxes might decrease the total disposable tax revenues (as experienced in India) with every raise in the tax rates. As for UK and 50% tax-bracket this might be isolated example, but one of my family members opted to work in NY over London (paid in sterling pounds) because of taxes british government lost on collecting taxes on this individual and I am sure that all those co.s incorporated in BVI had the same idea.</p>
<p>About the US running deliberate surpluses, it is not something easily controllable because a lot depends on economic situation. Yes, ideally, if the US run surpluses than many things could be controlled. But I have my doubts when the left wing start speculating that coz of Bushs plan older people will be pushed into poverty. From the way I have interpreted the proposal, current elderly people will keep their ss. Also, it might be true that some people might be negatively impacted by his plan but again the same plan was proposed by Clinton as well so it is nothing to do with left or right, but is more about sustaining the system with the only plausible way.</p>
<p>Yeah sorry about using less efficient people I am not a native English speaker, so can get carried away when typing. What I meant was the population that abuses the system because they know that the system is there to support them (as discussed above)</p>
<p>About iraq again I agree with you about bad timing. The world was fighting al-queda in Afghanistan and suddenly the whole iraq thing came up from nowhere. But, also my world is formed from my experiences and I almost lost my bro on 9/11 and if there is a chance that saddam can do that in future, I am of the opinion that it should be done the funny thing is if the after-war war hadnt been so brutal, bush would have gone down in the books as the great liberator.</p>
<p>I will surely visit the websites but I better get back to my books (I got finals going on) coz these discussions aint gonna pay my bills :)</p>
<p>Bump......</p>