Face The Board - Conservative

[Supernaut]

My favorite aspect is just that I think it's the real New Testament Church which was intended. I don't think everyone else is completely wrong; I just think it's right for me. And I like the historical tradition. The liturgy they conduct is still word-for-word the same that was written around the 4th century. There aren't many human things which have remained unchanged for 1,600 years. That's really fascinating to me.

That is quite the thing. Nothing seems to remain the same for that long.
I have a fascination with age old monuments etc...like the pyramid of gyza and the like.

I played in punk bands for about 20 years. I still like to play guitar and try to write songs.

[/quote]

What are some of your favorite bands? Music styles?

 

[Rebekka]

Could you tell me about the orthodox fast? I've heard it's extremely strict - but also that if you follow it you get about the healthiest diet imaginable (nearly vegan, but with seafood - at least that's what I've heard). I bet the orthodox don't have the weight problems the rest of the western world have.

 

[AzA]

Why do Jamaican locals buy the imported food rather than locally produced food?

Because it can be more than 50% cheaper.

Edit:
And because "free trade" regulations, and conditions placed on IMF agreements, do not allow the local government to subsidize local products or block out foreign imports.

 

[Chesterton]

What are some of your favorite bands? Music styles?

I was always sorta narrow-minded. Punk rock's really all I ever liked. I like the '77 punk era stuff, and American hardcore that followed. I like Chuck Berry, early Stones, Stooges, X, Angry Samoans, Nip Drivers, stuff like that.

 

[Chesterton]

Could you tell me about the orthodox fast? I've heard it's extremely strict - but also that if you follow it you get about the healthiest diet imaginable (nearly vegan, but with seafood - at least that's what I've heard).

We're vegan approximately half of the days of the year. We fast almost every Wednesday and Friday, plus there's four major fast periods during the year. A fast for laypersons is usually no meat, fish, eggs, dairy, wine or olive oil. It can be stricter for say, monks, and less strict for children and the elderly or people with special health needs.

I bet the orthodox don't have the weight problems the rest of the western world have.

I don't know, because when we're supposed to fast, we fast, but when we're supposed to feast, we really feast.

 

[theb4ssm4ncometh]

It's not surprising that there are corrupt charities around, but I don't think that's a good argument against charities. There are also good ones.

I am not arguing against charities- I am arguing that private charity is not sufficient. The right seems to think that gov't programs are never acceptable/ necessary because private charities are doing all the important social work. Fact is, (and I mean no disrespect by this) charities haven't gotten the job done.

although it may pain me as an economist to say it, the gov't may have a place in obliging successful members of society to give the children of less fortunate/more lazy members a little boost to give them a fighting chance.
Does that mean subsidizing charities or social enterprise? Im open to that. but I haven't heard those or really any good ideas come from the right wing on the subject of poverty. The invisible hand forgets to pass resources all the way around, it seems. what can the right offer for those it forgets?

 

[theb4ssm4ncometh]

Because it can be more than 50% cheaper.

Edit:
And because "free trade" regulations, and conditions placed on IMF agreements, do not allow the local government to subsidize local products or block out foreign imports.

EXACTLY (thx)

 

[Chesterton]

I am not arguing against charities- I am arguing that private charity is not sufficient. The right seems to think that gov't programs are never acceptable/ necessary because private charities are doing all the important social work. Fact is, (and I mean no disrespect by this) charities haven't gotten the job done.

although it may pain me as an economist to say it, the gov't may have a place in obliging successful members of society to give the children of less fortunate/more lazy members a little boost to give them a fighting chance.

Well "obliging" seems a nice, gentle word. How do you suggest some people oblige other people to give?

Does that mean subsidizing charities or social enterprise? Im open to that. but I haven't heard those or really any good ideas come from the right wing on the subject of poverty. The invisible hand forgets to pass resources all the way around, it seems. what can the right offer for those it forgets?

What does the left want to do? I don't think the left has gotten rid of poverty anywhere.

EXACTLY (thx)

So the locals benefit from lower prices, right?

 

[theb4ssm4ncometh]

Well "obliging" seems a nice, gentle word. How do you suggest some people oblige other people to give?

lol taxes. evil, godless, communist, taxes.

What does the left want to do? I don't think the left has gotten rid of poverty anywhere.

Well we certainly havent cured poverty entirely anywhere. But why don't you ask some one on medicaid or food stamps if "big bad government" has done anything for them.

Even something as inefficient as government can give people the basic neccessities they need, and its very off-putting to here the right say "not with my taxes" right after they say "God bless America!"

So the locals benefit from lower prices, right?

sorry, face palm necessary -

While the immediate effect of lower prices gives a temporary benifit to domestic consumers, Jamaican farmers (who cannot produce at as low a cost as mechanized american farmers) were wrecked. they couldn't charge enough to pay their workers, and unemployment spiked, as most Jamaicans were indeed farmers. LOW PRICES ARE NOT ALWAYS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY.-(sorry i've been trying to nail that point home for a while)

 

[Chesterton]

lol taxes. evil, godless, communist, taxes.

Well we certainly havent cured poverty entirely anywhere. But why don't you ask some one on medicaid or food stamps if "big bad government" has done anything for them.

Even something as inefficient as government can give people the basic neccessities they need, and its very off-putting to here the right say "not with my taxes" right after they say "God bless America!"

In Amerca government does give poor people the basic necessities they need. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say government shouldn't do that. I'm not sure what you're on about.

While the immediate effect of lower prices gives a temporary benifit to domestic consumers, Jamaican farmers (who cannot produce at as low a cost as mechanized american farmers) were wrecked. they couldn't charge enough to pay their workers, and unemployment spiked, as most Jamaicans were indeed farmers. LOW PRICES ARE NOT ALWAYS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY.-(sorry i've been trying to nail that point home for a while)

If that's what your point is, then low prices are neither here nor there for the economy. If they spend less on the food they'll have more money to spend on other things in the economy. If they spend more on food, they'll have less for other things.

 

[theb4ssm4ncometh]

In Amerca government does give poor people the basic necessities they need. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say government shouldn't do that. I'm not sure what you're on about.

No, unfortunately I know from personal experience that the USA is not quite there. I have been to alot of soup kitchens and shelters that say they are having financial issues staying afloat.

I have also personaly conversed with conservatives that see food stamps/medicare as awful government hand out programs that need to be replaced. Its good to see that that attitude isnt prevalent among all of you though.

If that's what your point is, then low prices are neither here nor there for the economy. If they spend less on the food they'll have more money to spend on other things in the economy. If they spend more on food, they'll have less for other things.

as i said, most Jamaicans are farmers- they are loosing money to American farmers, and thus cant spend it elsewhere. What "other things" could they produce? Even if they could relearn a life time of skills, they would need money to open the new business. Where can they get that when its all gone aborad? think of it this way-

with tarrifs protecting local farmers-

localfarmers->food price (a)->consumers(usually localfarmers of other food)
so
consumers->$$->farmers, and $$ is used to cover cost/pay employees

w/o tariffs

food price (b) possible due to mechanized farming

Foreign farmers-> food price (b)->consumers
so
consumers->$-> OUT OF JAMAICA-(thats why economy is hurt)

Localfarmers can no longer pay employees, who cannot buy other things, which hurts the makers of other things, who inturn buy less food, hurting the farmers....

do you see what happened to Jamaica now? just by looking at the numbers in CANNOT be argued that they are better off.

 

[Chesterton]

as i said, most Jamaicans are farmers- they are loosing money to American farmers, and thus cant spend it elsewhere.

If most Jamaicans are farmers, then they should buy each other's produce and stop buying imported stuff. They're free to do that aren't they? But then of course the American farmers would be losing money.

 

[theb4ssm4ncometh]

If most Jamaicans are farmers, then they should buy each other's produce and stop buying imported stuff. They're free to do that aren't they? But then of course the American farmers would be losing money.

american farmers wouldnt loose money, they would just not gain it- before the tarrifs were repealed, they had no access to the jamaican market.

And of course Jaimaicans arent being stopped from avoding cheap foreign food, but you need to put yourself in their shoes (if they own shoes). You are a medium-low income jamaican farmer already living off a little. One day in the market you see new baskets of goods that you dont grow (and normaly buy from other locals) at an extremely low price. are you going to stop an think "what are the long term ecnomic consequences of this purchase?". no, you are just going to buy the cheaper products.

I have noticed that most free market economists fail to understand that not everyone is an economist. this concept of the "perfectly rational homo economicus" has been proven wrong again and again as consumers are tricked and swindled by market players (hello-credit cards?)

do some research on this situation! It will show you how free market capitalsim needs to be reigned in. it saddens me deeply to see so many christians failing to see the greed and destruction within the system